Why are most climate change deniers right wingers?
Comments
-
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:Cressers wrote:"OK, so let's assume that humans aren't responsible for climate change - why are the vast majority of climate scientists fooled"
I wish that the naysayers were right, and that humans weren't responsible for climate change, or even better that it won't be as bad as many are predicting. However, as I have said, I cannot bring myself to believe that the vast majority of scientists, from different fields and all nations are either a) wrong or b) taking part in a massive conspiracy that goes against so many powerful, vested interests.
Scientists used to think the Sun went round the Earth.
Scientists used to think the Earth was flat.
Scientists used to think bees couldn't fly. No-one told the bees
Scientists are fallable. So am I :shock:
Worrying about it won't fix it though. That is a fact.
No. SCIENCE per se is a new discipline. Using evidence to prove and test observations in a repeatable manner is a relatively recent devlopment. You are referring to ancient "scientists" who were in fact natural philosophers. They made all sorts of claims based purely on flights of fancy. Very rarely did they bother to test their hypotheses.0 -
clanton wrote:daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:Cressers wrote:"OK, so let's assume that humans aren't responsible for climate change - why are the vast majority of climate scientists fooled"
I wish that the naysayers were right, and that humans weren't responsible for climate change, or even better that it won't be as bad as many are predicting. However, as I have said, I cannot bring myself to believe that the vast majority of scientists, from different fields and all nations are either a) wrong or b) taking part in a massive conspiracy that goes against so many powerful, vested interests.
Scientists used to think the Sun went round the Earth.
Scientists used to think the Earth was flat.
Scientists used to think bees couldn't fly. No-one told the bees
Scientists are fallable. So am I :shock:
Worrying about it won't fix it though. That is a fact.
No. SCIENCE per se is a new discipline. Using evidence to prove and test observations in a repeatable manner is a relatively recent devlopment. You are referring to ancient "scientists" who were in fact natural philosophers. They made all sorts of claims based purely on flights of fancy. Very rarely did they bother to test their hypotheses.
I believe that until science came along in the enlightenment Aristotle was pretty much held up to be the expert on everything - just read a good article about this, but can't remember where - apparently this worship of Aristotle's works led to progress being held back for centuries.
But Aristotle was wrong on nearly everything - and he did did just what you said - made things up - said the human mind was sitiuated in the heart and the brain was just for colling the blood - so anyone who believed toherwise, and there were a few, were just ignored by the establishment.
Modern science didn't really come about fully until the 20th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Science
and we can thank the Vienna circle for that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle0 -
To answer the original question: probably the same reason most creationists are right wingers.0
-
SteppenHerring wrote:To answer the original question: probably the same reason most creationists are right wingers.
Cute!
The word "denier" really winds me up. Why can't somebody disagree with others without language like that? It's a deliberate attempt by the likes of Moonbat to paint dissenting views as beyond the pale, crazy and therefore not to be engaged with."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:SteppenHerring wrote:To answer the original question: probably the same reason most creationists are right wingers.
Cute!
The word "denier" really winds me up. Why can't somebody disagree with others without language like that? It's a deliberate attempt by the likes of Moonbat to paint dissenting views as beyond the pale, crazy and therefore not to be engaged with.
Disagreeing is fine, if you have valid evidence that hasn't already been thoroughly discredited, or you can genuinely find a hole in the official theory, but most people who disagree with the Climate Change science just seem to say things like - I just don't believe humans are that powerful - or It's the sun - or what about volcanoes. But most of the objections I've heard can be dispeled with a quick Google.
Denier is something to do with tights isn't it?0 -
The word "denier" I think is very apt. The majority of people who disagree with climate change science do so as an automatic, knee jerk response., rather than a reasoned and researched debate. Note I'm not referring to the majority on here.0
-
I agree, Clanton. Where are the scientific facts that show that man's use of carbon-based fuels is not contributing to global warming? There aren't any.0
-
Crown Jewel wrote:I agree, Clanton. Where are the scientific facts that show that man's use of carbon-based fuels is not contributing to global warming? There aren't any.
Maybe there are, maybe there are not.
While I am willing to sacrifice work time to browse this site :oops: time is too short to dig up every relevant study.
However, from the New Scientist
"The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up."
In other words, there is not much I personally can do about it.
Therefore I won't worry about it.
God, I bite so easilly :roll:
"God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference. "None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Because right wingers are uncomfortable with the idea of (as they see it) being press ganged into any form of collective action. It feels easier for them therefore to just argue the toss in the face of overwhelming evidence, rather than accept that they should be doing something about it together with everyone else. A major case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.0
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:SteppenHerring wrote:To answer the original question: probably the same reason most creationists are right wingers.
Cute!
The word "denier" really winds me up. Why can't somebody disagree with others without language like that? It's a deliberate attempt by the likes of Moonbat to paint dissenting views as beyond the pale, crazy and therefore not to be engaged with.
What word should we use then for describing the linear mass density of fibres? Either way, I have no idea as to what Aaron Lennon believes about Climate Change.
Dadum tssshhh :P0 -
daviesee wrote:Crown Jewel wrote:I agree, Clanton. Where are the scientific facts that show that man's use of carbon-based fuels is not contributing to global warming? There aren't any.
Maybe there are, maybe there are not.
While I am willing to sacrifice work time to browse this site :oops: time is too short to dig up every relevant study.
However, from the New Scientist
"The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up."
In other words, there is not much I personally can do about it.
Therefore I won't worry about it.
God, I bite so easilly :roll:
"God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference. "
Not logical.
If you choose to do nothing then you are part of the problem
also from the New Scientist:
But this is primarily a political issue. The industrialised nations have already emitted enough carbon dioxide to trigger significant warming. Humanity cannot afford for the developing world to take the same path. So a deal has to be done to prevent that. But today the technology to develop on a low-carbon path is much further advanced. And costs are coming down fast.
A new deal to save the world from climate change will probably involve large flows of technology and cash to the developing world. There are precedents for this. Developing countries are already being paid in cash and technology for not using ozone-destroying chemicals in refrigerators and air-conditioning systems. The same must be done on a bigger scale to halt climate change.
To repeat, this is not primarily a technological or even an economic problem, as huge as these challenges are. It is a political problem. And in politics, most things can be done if there is the will.
So you should be lending your voice to the call for change, if nothing else.
and bollocks to God, serenity or not! :twisted:0 -
As said above this is a political issue that will only be solved by politicians.
Can you see any that will genuinely make a difference, I can't.
When I do I will vote accordingly.
Politicians are out for themselves.
Big business is out for itself.
Bring on the revolution I guess.
From the Untouchables:-
Sean Connery (Porgy) "What are you willing to do?"
Kevin Costner (Me) "What would you have me do?"
Seriously, I am fed up being preached to on all sides.
I know what is going on.
I know what I can do about it.
I am doing just that.
Other than that I will not worry about it.
What else is expected?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
You are quite correct - on an individual level your actions are meaningless. But ALL changes are brought about by a sum of individual actions. You are saying that a war cannot bewon by one individual sldier and you are correct, bu a war CAN be won by the sum of the individual actions by all the soldiers involved.
I personally am too apathetic to march on Parliament, organise rallies or join Greenpeace on the open seas. But I do what I can to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Qute likely the world is doomed in spite of what I or anyone else does - but I can live with myself this way.0 -
clanton wrote:You are quite correct - on an individual level your actions are meaningless. But ALL changes are brought about by a sum of individual actions. You are saying that a war cannot bewon by one individual sldier and you are correct, bu a war CAN be won by the sum of the individual actions by all the soldiers involved.
I personally am too apathetic to march on Parliament, organise rallies or join Greenpeace on the open seas. But I do what I can to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Qute likely the world is doomed in spite of what I or anyone else does - but I can live with myself this way.
If you make activism fun then at least all is not lost when it goes completely tits up.
I spent ten years as an activist - met both my wives on protests, most of my friends - free gigs, plenty of parties, drunken pub nights, cycle rides, long walks, running from the police on occasion, even one day in the cells; generally had a pretty good time - nothing like being agin the man to bring about a bit of solidarity and comradeship.
I'll never regret those years even if they amount to a puddle of piss in a desert.
These days I just stick my name on anything doing the rounds - oh and work as an environmental advisor for a major company....seriously considering getting back in though despite aching knees and back.
It's all about people pressure - politicians can only ignore people pressure for a while - there's always a few who try to exploit it - and they are the ones we use to get leverage.0 -
I respect the counter view on this issue, but as I kind of as suspected, there is
little or no reference to hard, credible science (i.e. respected,
independent, world leading, peer reviewed science) to back
people's views. People are relying on hearsay, echoing each other's
opinions, etc. Most scientists who dismiss man-made climate change are in the pay of the oli industry or belong to some right wing think tank.
Even if 10% of scientists are sceptic, I'm afraid I am with the 90% who are not,
because they base their decisions on expertise, scientific rigour, statistical evidence, objectivity, etc etc.0 -
daviesee wrote:Just to be devil's advocate -
"One has to be fairly determined to avoid the facts not to realize that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing far faster than it ever has in human history"
Just what was the CO2 level 3000, 3,000,000 or 30,000,000 years ago? On a planet scale human history is only a tiny part. What was the planet's temperature at those times?
"Yes, cows fart and this releases methane. Yes, volcanos erupt and gases are released in the process. But none of these things explain the unprecedented change in the atmosphere. The only thing that does is the effect of human behavior."
Why are humans the only ones to blame? Surely a bloody great big volcano must have some effect? I think you will find that the ice age is a bit of a precedent for climate change
"The effects will be bad. Very bad. Isn't that enough to know?"
We all know that. The question is can we do anything about it?
I used the bike to commute today instead of the car will that affect anything?
In a negligable way, yes. But still negligable. I still think it is the ultimate level of arrogance to assume that we are in charge.
And for the question about the car and the wall. What if instead of a wall it is a tsunami heading your way?
The speed of the car won't make any difference, it's going to get flooded anyway.
Oh, and if we are concerned about the enviroment, why are you burning fuel in a speeding car?
My biggest bugbear is that our government appear to think that if I pay more taxes then the climate change will magically go away.
Just how the **** is that going to work??? :evil:
I have actually done some sums on this over at a couple of other sites:
Here on badscience.net (where I go by the name "jimbob":
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5851&start=275#p105396
We can see that the amount of CO2 increase is pretty similar to the amount of CO2 emissions (using some basic sums and data from wikipedia) Full calculations here
You can also look at historical data and see that the curerent warming is abnormal in recent history. I don't think you can emulate full atmospheric science, but the surprising thing is that some failry simple techniques give a conclusion very similar to what the scientific consensus is. As far as sanity checking goes that is pretty convincing to me.jimbob wrote:jimbob wrote:Martin wrote:As you say things look unusual now - coincidence is a bit iffy - so why? Humans have significant effects in so many areas of environment, so focussing on fossil fuels seems a bit, enthusiastic. (I'm just doing my correlation CO2 emissions/levels/temperatures just now, bit slow as watching a film at the same time, but it should be done 'soon', for an engineers value of 'soon')
And our current emissions are currently about 1% of atmospheric CO2 per year, and the growth rate is currently about 1% of atmospheric CO2/year. That is why I'd focus on CO2 emissions.
They fit the numbers to a first apprioximation, when you also have to consider deforistation etc...
Remember that this was what I was trying to answer:Martin wrote:
Well, I'd like to understand why academic climatologists are so confident about 3. We plainly don't know the mechanisms so thoroughly that we can conclude it can't be anything else.Pipsqueak wrote:Which of the following do you think is non-factual:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. Carbon dioxide is increasing.
3. The new carbon dioxide is from artificial* sources.
OK, so discussing (3)
What sort of liklyhood do you think that humans are causing the increase in CO2?As you say things look unusual now -"coincidence is a bit iffy"
Given that my fag-packet calculation estimates that humans are currently putting about 1% of the atmospheric CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and this pretty well matches the level of CO2 growth, and that our best data seeems to show this abnormal* rise starting around the time of the industiral revolution is it:
Is it
A) Not enough data to estimate the balance of probabilities?
Probably caused by human activity?
C) Almost certainly caused by human activity?
D) Certainly caused by human activity?
Or something else?
I'd go with "Almost certainly caused by human activity", which answers one of those three questions.
We probably agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it is increasing, so that leaves us with
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it is increasing, and that the evidence is such that Jim believes this increase is almost certainly caused by human activity, whilst Martin thinks that the evidence is only strong enopugh to state....?"
*(abnormal over a period of 400kyrs, including the Vostok measurements)
graph below:
**Deano wrote:
Oh - and sorry jimbob/jdc - that was a Saturday morning lapse of concentration - frankly I'm surprised at my ability to type in such a condition..
JDC is the injured party...0 -
nuff said then0
-
0
-
Alain Quay wrote:I respect the counter view on this issue, but as I kind of as suspected, there is
little or no reference to hard, credible science (i.e. respected,
independent, world leading, peer reviewed science) to back
people's views. People are relying on hearsay, echoing each other's
opinions, etc. Most scientists who dismiss man-made climate change are in the pay of the oli industry or belong to some right wing think tank.
Even if 10% of scientists are sceptic, I'm afraid I am with the 90% who are not,
because they base their decisions on expertise, scientific rigour, statistical evidence, objectivity, etc etc.
What rot. This morning in the Guardian in an ad-hom attack on the saintly David Bellamy for declaring that the climate change debate is largely OTT, George Monbiot was decidedlyflakey. Again. He usually is. Bellamy in the pay of the oil industry ? Unbelievable.
I've only skim-read a couple of the pages here, but, yet again, I wonder which side of the fence I'm on. Am I a 'denier' for believing that CC is here and with us ( I'm not denying it ), but there's bollox all we can do about ? Am I wrong to suggest that no matter how much cash and 'carbon-credits' are traded to keep the third world a third world, there's sod-all going to help reverse global warming. We are not big enough or clever enough to alter anything very much in nature except on an infinitessimal scale, i.e. barely noticeable.
As a tyro astronomer all my life, I sold my hydrogen-alpha telescope (sub-angstrom narrow band filter for viewing the sun's dynamic atmosphere ) a couple of years ago as our sun appeared to be having a rest, even the sunspots seemed to have dried up some. Weird. No, I can't explain it.
http://www.astromart.com/news/news.asp?news_id=984
Incidentally, 'peer-reviewed' science ought to be viewed with the same level of scepticism as any other assertion by anyone. Professional scientists, like everyone else, like to stay employed and will not queer their careers for the sake of a contestable, shakey theory. But having said that, I see that, in fact, there are a few willing to stick their heads on the block ( ..of course, right wing dunderheads, all ! ). Be interesting to see which of them are still in a job in the next few years.
I regard the CC debate as being symptomatic of a collective madness by people who ought to know better, that think they know better than anyone else. Chaos rules ! :shock:"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
By the way, a midnight aeroplane flight in clear skies across Europe would perfectly illustrate where our priorities are. Every road and city in the world appears to be illuminated now by endless lights. Is it any wonder when gazing out of the window at 30000ft to ask what is it all for and is this really why we need more and more power stations ? :?"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0
-
cant be arsed to read the thread but ill comment any way
so forgive me if someone has already said this.
Climate change is a cycle that the world goes through every few thousand or so years .
remember ice ages ??0 -
olliestokes wrote:cant be arsed to read the thread but ill comment any way
so forgive me if someone has already said this.
Climate change is a cycle that the world goes through every few thousand or so years .
remember ice ages ??
Just because something does happen in nature doesn't mean it has nothing to do with human activity.
Bushfires happen in nature, but they can still be started by humans.0 -
Porgy wrote:mercsport wrote:What rot. This morning in the Guardian in an ad-hom attack on the saintly David Bellamy.
Why is he saintly? :?:
besides he's a botanist not a climate scientist - as an expert his opinion on climate change carries no more weight than mine.
No, it doesn't. Neither does a climate scientist's opnion carry very much more weight either, because 'Climate Science' is, effectively, the wild west of science. A johhny-come-lately and, some would say, not really a science at all. I expect it'll develop in time but how it has already got us all in its grip I'm at a loss to know.
To whiz a quote from a page on Wiki ( ..don't mock, please ) " Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. Climate is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as differential equations. These equations are coupled and nonlinear, so that approximate solutions are obtained by using numerical methods to create global climate models. Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated to analyze "
" Saintly", yes, why not ? I have never heard David Bellamy talk twaddle, despite being vocal and opinionated. In my lexicon of 'good-guys'. Monbiot, Porrit and the rest, with regard to CC are also vocal and opinionated but are just plain wrong headed.
olliestokes - above - shames me, because without the flannel,in his wonderfully succinct way has summed it all up perfectly, methinks."Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
olliestokes wrote:cant be arsed to read the thread but ill comment any way
so forgive me if someone has already said this.
Climate change is a cycle that the world goes through every few thousand or so years .
remember ice ages ??
If you look at the model predictions you will notice that the natural cycle is clearly seen imposed over the top of the man made effect. The natural cycle will still occur in the future but for a while the cool end of the cycle will be somewhere up near what was previously the warm end of the cycle.0 -
olliestokes wrote:cant be arsed to read the thread but ill comment any way
so forgive me if someone has already said this.
Climate change is a cycle that the world goes through every few thousand or so years .
remember ice ages ??
You must be pretty old if you can remember the ice age.
I know I can't.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0
