Why are most climate change deniers right wingers?

finchy

Maybe the terminology should be changed to something like human-exacerbated climate change, so that then everyone will realise that scientists have taken account of natural events, and are in fact basing their work on what the climate would be like if humans didn't exist.

Porgy

mercsport wrote:

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.

" 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.

all of that is just opinion though isn't it? Instead of arguing the evidence that is perfectly scientifically valid, you side step the whole issue by arguing about personalities and damning all the evidence as a "johnny come lately" science, which goes nowhere to refuting it. Nor does your quote from wikipedia refute the validity of the models being developed. They are improving and as a test of their validity can be used to model the past which we now have a very good knowledge of from natural records.

What do you think is causing the melting of the arctic ice cap?

and i'm not going to get into rubbishing David Bellamy's character - but he's been a climate sceptic from the start - and yes i have heard him talk twaddle - on climate change mostly.

daviesee

I see the fire is being stoked just nicely.

Lovely! :twisted:

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

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.

Cracking film, Ice Age, me and the kids loved it.

mercsport

johnfinch wrote:

Maybe the terminology should be changed to something like human-exacerbated climate change, so that then everyone will realise that scientists have taken account of natural events, and are in fact basing their work on what the climate would be like if humans didn't exist.

Good point.

Porgy wrote:

all of that is just opinion though isn't it? Instead of arguing the evidence that is perfectly scientifically valid, you side step the whole issue by arguing about personalities and damning all the evidence as a "johnny come lately" science, which goes nowhere to refuting it. Nor does your quote from wikipedia refute the validity of the models being developed. They are improving and as a test of their validity can be used to model the past which we now have a very good knowledge of from natural records.

Yes, most of it opinion. And, issuing from that of a born sceptic. Nor am I "sidestepping the whole issue" or "damning all the evidence", merely pointing out that the foundations of climate science are weak at best. However, the most telling quote from my purloined piece from Wiki is : "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" thus, from my jaundiced perspective, I see the whole CC thing based upon guesswork and suppositions, larded together with the all too human prediliction for flim-flammery.

Porgy wrote:

What do you think is causing the melting of the arctic ice cap?

Like everyone else, I'd suppose : global warming. Ah yes, joy, the NE passage is now a reality as well as the NW passage. Never thought I'd see the day.

passout

Because right wing people are generallly more intelligent & certainly more cynical when it comes to scientific 'experts' and the media i.e. they are not suckers like the lefties.

Stuey01

I saw David Bellamy slap a fan on Sunday.

Oh. wait....

rolf_f

passout wrote:

Because right wing people are generallly more intelligent & certainly more cynical when it comes to scientific 'experts' and the media i.e. they are not suckers like the lefties.

lol!

finchy

passout wrote:

Because right wing people are generallly more intelligent & certainly more cynical when it comes to scientific 'experts' and the media i.e. they are not suckers like the lefties.

Don't bite, don't bite, don't bite....

Yes, of course they are. That's why papers like the Daily Toryrag are full of people with no clue whatsoever making their illogical claims on the subject...

Damn, I bit.

Alain Quay

David Bellamy has gone full circle.
A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. However, Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".

Some facts to back up statements please folks...

mercsport

Alain Quay wrote:

Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".

Some facts to back up statements please folks...

Bellamy bothered to travel a few hundred miles to come and talk the odds in our village hall about 18 months ago with regard to the uselessness of wind turbines ( ..high on the 'warmists' agenda), with which we'd been threatened to have erected upon certain of the hills around my neck of the woods. So, I wouldn't have thought that he's entirely given up the fight.

finchy

mercsport wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".

Some facts to back up statements please folks...

Bellamy bothered to travel a few hundred miles to come and talk the odds in our village hall about 18 months ago with regard to the uselessness of wind turbines ( ..high on the 'warmists' agenda), with which we'd been threatened to have erected upon certain of the hills around my neck of the woods. So, I wouldn't have thought that he's entirely given up the fight.

The argument against wind turbines is also a conservationist's argument in that they kill birds.

That is why wind turbines placed far out at sea (floating anchored ones, not the off-shore type) are the better option - the wind is much more reliable so more efficient and cost-effective and they are less dangerous to birds, especially migratory birds coming from the north.

The Norwegians have recently launched the first one, and are going to be running trials on it for the next two years.

This could go a long way to providing answers to future energy problems, without leaving radioactive waste for many generations to come.

mercsport

johnfinch wrote:

The argument against wind turbines is also a conservationist's argument in that they kill birds.

That is why wind turbines placed far out at sea (floating anchored ones, not the off-shore type) are the better option - the wind is much more reliable so more efficient and cost-effective and they are less dangerous to birds, especially migratory birds coming from the north.

The Norwegians have recently launched the first one, and are going to be running trials on it for the next two years.

This could go a long way to providing answers to future energy problems, without leaving radioactive waste for many generations to come.

That's heartening to hear. I wasn't aware of the Norwegians attaching themselves to wind energy, as they have an abundance of naturally falling water which they harnessed yonks ago to produce what I always supposed to be a surplus. How odd.

finchy

mercsport wrote:

That's heartening to hear. I wasn't aware of the Norwegians attaching themselves to wind energy, as they have an abundance of naturally falling water which they harnessed yonks ago to produce what I always supposed to be a surplus. How odd.

Maybe they want to sell surplus to other European countries in years to come, and develop the technology for export.

dennisn

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

nicensleazy

Bloody climate change....yeah what ever! I'm all for a cleaner planet, but when are the USA going to take a lead on this. Let me just pause for a second...........never! So, how can the likes of the west dictate to China, India and the like!

mercsport

johnfinch wrote:

mercsport wrote:

That's heartening to hear. I wasn't aware of the Norwegians attaching themselves to wind energy, as they have an abundance of naturally falling water which they harnessed yonks ago to produce what I always supposed to be a surplus. How odd.

Maybe they want to sell surplus to other European countries in years to come, and develop the technology for export.

Perhaps. Not so long ago I heard that the Icelanders were considering piping their excess natural therms to us, here in the UK. At a price , of course. That's on hold for the moment I suppose until we're truly stuffed for energy. Which I will only believe when someone admits the 'bleedin' obvious' and we start switching off the eternally lit ribbons of light on our motorway network. As a start.

dennisn wrote:

Call me sarcastic but........

Not necessarily sarcastic Dennis, cynical maybe the right term here.

nicensleazy wrote:

Bloody climate change....yeah what ever! I'm all for a cleaner planet, but when are the USA going to take a lead on this. Let me just pause for a second...........never! So, how can the likes of the west dictate to China, India and the like!

Funnily enough, top of the news today : "China pledged today to slow the growth of its carbon emissions despite the rapid growth of its economy. President Hu Jintao told nearly 100 leaders at a UN summit on climate change that the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases would cut carbon"

We right-wing cynics are definitely an endangered species facing extinction on this planet. Can no one save us ? :?

nicensleazy

No, we can't cut carbon emissions, what will happen to the lovely carbon cycle frames coming out of the far east!

finchy

mercsport wrote:

We right-wing cynics are definitely an endangered species facing extinction on this planet. Can no one save us ? :?

I thought that you would have gone extinct when the neo-liberal economic system saddled this country with debts we'll be paying off for generations while the wealthy bankers walk away with bulging wallets.

clanton

dennisn wrote:

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

Now the argument has run its course - as it does each time it comes up. First people deny it is happening at all. The next step is to admit it is happening, but claim we are nopt responsible. The last step is as above - the conspiracy theory.

The root fact is I think that people believe what they want to believe, in spite of evidence or common sense. If something does not fit comfortably with your belief system or way of life then you reject it out of hand. Denier indeed! Human nature, depressing but no going to change.

passout

dennisn wrote:

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

I agree. I'm an academic myself (not in the sciences); generally academics need to secure funding to enable them to pursue projects. They are much more likely to secure funding if it's in a topical or seemingly 'important' area - global warming is a prime example of this. Academics also know that people also read about this subject, whereas average academic journal articles are only read by six, yes six, other people. In fact many articles, which take weeks or even months to complete, are only ever read by the editor! This is soul destroying, at least with global warming they have an audience! This doesn't mean that it's all lies of course - I'm sure that most of the research is fairly well conducted. However you have to look at why they are asking these particular questions and consider if financial pressure or political leanings have (sub-conciously) impacted upon they way in which data is interpretated. For these reasons it is important to consider all findings in relation to this subject and to recognise the limitations of the research so far; this applies to all research.

clanton

passout wrote:

dennisn wrote:

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

I agree. I'm an academic myself (not in the sciences); generally academics need to secure funding to enable them to pursue projects. They are much more likely to secure funding if it's in a topical or seemingly 'important' area - global warming is a prime example of this. Academics also know that people also read about this subject, whereas average academic journal articles are only read by six, yes six, other people. In fact many articles, which take weeks or even months to complete, are only ever read by the editor! This is soul destroying, at least with global warming they have an audience! This doesn't mean that it's all lies of course - I'm sure that most of the research is fairly well conducted. However you have to look at why they are asking these particular questions and consider if financial pressure or political leanings have (sub-conciously) impacted upon they way in which data is interpretated. For these reasons it is important to consider all findings in relation to this subject and to recognise the limitations of the research so far; this applies to all research.

You are actually broadly and roundly accusing scientists of unethical actions here. Do you have any proof for your claims at all?

Your statment about articles is in fact not entirley correct - it depends on where they are published. A proper, peer reviewed study is exactly that - peer reviewed! In other words read AND approved by your peers prior to publication. These are the only ones worth their salt, otherwise you can make any damn claim you like.

Yes it is quite possible to collect and use data in ways to support your study, skewing the results. But climate change scientists are hardly the only ones with a vested interest - all the big oil companies would love to have the global warming debate go away and I rather think they have infinitely more resources at their disposal to fund any number of studies they like. So where are they? The last one I read was funded by Shell and was conducted partly by geologists - and supported man made effects in climate change.

Cressers

Some CC is athromorphic, and some is natural.

Porgy

clanton wrote:

dennisn wrote:

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

Now the argument has run its course - as it does each time it comes up. First people deny it is happening at all. The next step is to admit it is happening, but claim we are nopt responsible. The last step is as above - the conspiracy theory.

The root fact is I think that people believe what they want to believe, in spite of evidence or common sense. If something does not fit comfortably with your belief system or way of life then you reject it out of hand. Denier indeed! Human nature, depressing but no going to change.

Once the gainsayers have resorted to the conspiracy theory we know we've won the argument. 8)

dennisn

Porgy wrote:

clanton wrote:

dennisn wrote:

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

Now the argument has run its course - as it does each time it comes up. First people deny it is happening at all. The next step is to admit it is happening, but claim we are nopt responsible. The last step is as above - the conspiracy theory.

The root fact is I think that people believe what they want to believe, in spite of evidence or common sense. If something does not fit comfortably with your belief system or way of life then you reject it out of hand. Denier indeed! Human nature, depressing but no going to change.

Once the gainsayers have resorted to the conspiracy theory we know we've won the argument. 8)

But I love conspiracy theories.
Anyway, I don't think of it as a conspiracy in the sense that meetings were held to discuss it. More of a individual thing among people who would benefit or have a vested interest in global warming existing. Scientist being in that group, along with politicians, who can then claim that they have saved us. Much like former Vice-President Al Gore,
who sort of invented global warming( ), is now telling us, that IF we listen to him he will show us the WAY.

clanton

The first changes attributed to global warming were reported by early Artic and Antarctic explorers. Al Gore is only lately jumped onto the band wagon.
Whilst I too am cynical about the motives behind some specific individual's actions (Al Gore for instance is not altogether altruistic) I do not allow this to detract from the bigger picture.

Porgy

clanton wrote:

The first changes attributed to global warming were reported by early Artic and Antarctic explorers. Al Gore is only lately jumped onto the band wagon.
Whilst I too am cynical about the motives behind some specific individual's actions (Al Gore for instance is not altogether altruistic) I do not allow this to detract from the bigger picture.

Our whole culture is set up so that people are motivated mainly by self interest - I don;t see why scientists should behave any differently from other people - it doesn't invalidate their findings.

And also the idea that scientists are benefitting more from studying climate change doesn;t add up. 10 years ago scientists in this field were complaining that they were being refused funding for climate change study and many were being told to moderate or even hush up their findings. Despite this the climate (no pun intended) has changed for scientists and the cliamte change theory is gaining weight. Doesn;t sound like a conspiarcy to me ( even an unconscious one motivated by self interest).

dennisn wrote:

But I love conspiracy theories.
Anyway, I don't think of it as a conspiracy in the sense that meetings were held to discuss it. More of a individual thing among people who would benefit or have a vested interest in global warming existing. Scientist being in that group, along with politicians, who can then claim that they have saved us. Much like former Vice-President Al Gore,
who sort of invented global warming( ), is now telling us, that IF we listen to him he will show us the WAY.

I too love conspiracy theories - have been studying them since before 9-11 and many have merit and many others are as nutty as they come...but fascinating nevertheless.

I understand your point and many of the CTs could claim a similar thing that of synchronised self interest - the way the media self censor for example - according to Chomsky - would be a very similar thing.

Despite all that I feel that the evidence should stand or fall on its own, and having looked at the evidence it seems clear to me that man is changing the climate on earth and possibly to a point that will make human life on earth impossible.

Even if there's only a small chance of this catastrophic outcome I think it's up to us all to take it very seriously indeed, and since we could all benefit from changes required in all sorts of different ways - not just because it'll limit the damage from climate change - i can't see any argument for not acting, and acting fast.

daviesee

Porgy wrote:

clanton wrote:

The first changes attributed to global warming were reported by early Artic and Antarctic explorers. Al Gore is only lately jumped onto the band wagon.
Whilst I too am cynical about the motives behind some specific individual's actions (Al Gore for instance is not altogether altruistic) I do not allow this to detract from the bigger picture.

Our whole culture is set up so that people are motivated mainly by self interest - I don;t see why scientists should behave any differently from other people - it doesn't invalidate their findings.

And also the idea that scientists are benefitting more from studying climate change doesn;t add up. 10 years ago scientists in this field were complaining that they were being refused funding for climate change study and many were being told to moderate or even hush up their findings. Despite this the climate (no pun intended) has changed for scientists and the cliamte change theory is gaining weight. Doesn;t sound like a conspiarcy to me ( even an unconscious one motivated by self interest).

dennisn wrote:

But I love conspiracy theories.
Anyway, I don't think of it as a conspiracy in the sense that meetings were held to discuss it. More of a individual thing among people who would benefit or have a vested interest in global warming existing. Scientist being in that group, along with politicians, who can then claim that they have saved us. Much like former Vice-President Al Gore,
who sort of invented global warming( ), is now telling us, that IF we listen to him he will show us the WAY.

I too love conspiracy theories - have been studying them since before 9-11 and many have merit and many others are as nutty as they come...but fascinating nevertheless.

I understand your point and many of the CTs could claim a similar thing that of synchronised self interest - the way the media self censor for example - according to Chomsky - would be a very similar thing.

Despite all that I feel that the evidence should stand or fall on its own, and having looked at the evidence it seems clear to me that man is changing the climate on earth and possibly to a point that will make human life on earth impossible.
Even if there's only a small chance of this catastrophic outcome I think it's up to us all to take it very seriously indeed, and since we could all benefit from changes required in all sorts of different ways - not just because it'll limit the damage from climate change - i can't see any argument for not acting, and acting fast.

That is probably the best solution for the planet and everything else on it.
Best keep it quiet, eh?

passout

clanton wrote:

passout wrote:

dennisn wrote:

As far as scientists pushing global warming, I believe it's in their best interest to do so.
If they claim it's happening and people buy it, then the people who bought the idea will demand that the scientists FIX the PROBLEM. Then the scientists will get all kinds of grants and government subsidies to study the PROBLEM. It's win win for them. I'm pretty sure that lots of scientists have already said that "this will be a LONG, hard job but WE
can do it". Or something like that. Call me sarcastic but.........

I agree. I'm an academic myself (not in the sciences); generally academics need to secure funding to enable them to pursue projects. They are much more likely to secure funding if it's in a topical or seemingly 'important' area - global warming is a prime example of this. Academics also know that people also read about this subject, whereas average academic journal articles are only read by six, yes six, other people. In fact many articles, which take weeks or even months to complete, are only ever read by the editor! This is soul destroying, at least with global warming they have an audience! This doesn't mean that it's all lies of course - I'm sure that most of the research is fairly well conducted. However you have to look at why they are asking these particular questions and consider if financial pressure or political leanings have (sub-conciously) impacted upon they way in which data is interpretated. For these reasons it is important to consider all findings in relation to this subject and to recognise the limitations of the research so far; this applies to all research.

You are actually broadly and roundly accusing scientists of unethical actions here. Do you have any proof for your claims at all?

Your statment about articles is in fact not entirley correct - it depends on where they are published. A proper, peer reviewed study is exactly that - peer reviewed! In other words read AND approved by your peers prior to publication. These are the only ones worth their salt, otherwise you can make any damn claim you like.

Yes it is quite possible to collect and use data in ways to support your study, skewing the results. But climate change scientists are hardly the only ones with a vested interest - all the big oil companies would love to have the global warming debate go away and I rather think they have infinitely more resources at their disposal to fund any number of studies they like. So where are they? The last one I read was funded by Shell and was conducted partly by geologists - and supported man made effects in climate change.

The AVERAGE of 6 comes from recent research published in the much respected Times Higher Educational Supplement. I have been involved with the peer reviewing process myself and it was referring to true academic journals. My observation is basically saying that one should be critical of all research, I wasn't saying that anyone had been 'un-ethical'. I don't deny global warming by the way, but we should always question findings.

clanton

daviesee wrote:

Porgy wrote:

clanton wrote:

The first changes attributed to global warming were reported by early Artic and Antarctic explorers. Al Gore is only lately jumped onto the band wagon.
Whilst I too am cynical about the motives behind some specific individual's actions (Al Gore for instance is not altogether altruistic) I do not allow this to detract from the bigger picture.

Our whole culture is set up so that people are motivated mainly by self interest - I don;t see why scientists should behave any differently from other people - it doesn't invalidate their findings.

And also the idea that scientists are benefitting more from studying climate change doesn;t add up. 10 years ago scientists in this field were complaining that they were being refused funding for climate change study and many were being told to moderate or even hush up their findings. Despite this the climate (no pun intended) has changed for scientists and the cliamte change theory is gaining weight. Doesn;t sound like a conspiarcy to me ( even an unconscious one motivated by self interest).

dennisn wrote:

But I love conspiracy theories.
Anyway, I don't think of it as a conspiracy in the sense that meetings were held to discuss it. More of a individual thing among people who would benefit or have a vested interest in global warming existing. Scientist being in that group, along with politicians, who can then claim that they have saved us. Much like former Vice-President Al Gore,
who sort of invented global warming( ), is now telling us, that IF we listen to him he will show us the WAY.

I too love conspiracy theories - have been studying them since before 9-11 and many have merit and many others are as nutty as they come...but fascinating nevertheless.

I understand your point and many of the CTs could claim a similar thing that of synchronised self interest - the way the media self censor for example - according to Chomsky - would be a very similar thing.

Despite all that I feel that the evidence should stand or fall on its own, and having looked at the evidence it seems clear to me that man is changing the climate on earth and possibly to a point that will make human life on earth impossible.
Even if there's only a small chance of this catastrophic outcome I think it's up to us all to take it very seriously indeed, and since we could all benefit from changes required in all sorts of different ways - not just because it'll limit the damage from climate change - i can't see any argument for not acting, and acting fast.

That is probably the best solution for the planet and everything else on it.
Best keep it quiet, eh?

Now that is new. The argument is "let's destroy the earth as fast as possible - in order to save it from mankind"? Were you in the American military by any chance? "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."