Why are most climate change deniers right wingers?

daviesee

clanton wrote:

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."

Eh, no.

The ultimate solution to save the planet. Remove mankind.
What is more important, us or the planet?
There-in lies the question
Tough choices in tough times.

crown_jewel

The planet will be fine. It was here long before humans and will be here long after them. The issue is that unless humans make major behavior changes the planet will not support human life here. We don't need to save the planet.

clanton

That's all rather too Zen for me I'm afraid!

jimmypippa

Alain Quay wrote:

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...

This post (earlier in the thread) contains some of my reasoning, showing some fairly simple sums that show the annual increase in CO2 is about the same as a simple estimate for human emissions, and that the level of CO2 is abnormally high, and started climbing abnormally around the industrial revolution.

If anyone actually wants to discuss facts, I can demonstrate my reasoning (as a sceptical layperson) that shows the temperature is abnormally high compared to historical trends.

The trouble with the people claiming there is no problem is that they look at all the uncertainties, and assume they all work in the best of possible directions, with no reason to assume that this is the case.


I was surprised when I started looking into the publicly available data, approaching it as I would an engineering problem at work, how closely the simple analysis agreed with the scientific consensus.

crown_jewel

Clanton, I didn't mean to be philosophical. I just meant that when we say "Save the Planet", what we really mean to say is "Save Us". It is a bit arrogant of us to equate the ability of humans to live on the planet with the ability of the planet itself to survive. Earth will be here after we are gone. We are just another species.

passout

We are not just another species. Dinosaurs didn't have the capacity to destroy the planet, many times over, send probes into space, die for their beliefs or discuss global warming. Darwinist or creationist - The Earth has never seen anything like mankind. I do agree that the Earth may well outlast us though. The other (less likely) possibility is that we may outlast the Earth, if we last long enough for the technology to develop!!

Somebody a few posts ago said that we may have to chose between the Earth & Mankind, or similar. Unlikely & paradoxical of course, but I'd choose Mankind every time without hesitation......despite the flaws.

daviesee

Loving a good flame 8)

I also like the delicious irony of the amount of energy spent on "saving the planet". :P

crown_jewel

Passout, quite right that we are unique as a species in that we can choose not to do the things we must in order to survive. Other species die out because they fail to evolve, not because they refuse to. All I meant is that if we do not adapt we will die out as any other species would.

passout

That's true.

Mothyman

..if I don't adapt to the demands of the steep hill outside my village, I'll die out...

Stuey01

Who gives a fuck about the Earth?
it is about prolonging the existence of mankind, that is all.

White Line

Climate change just happens. Doesn't anybody remember the planet heating up around the medieval times? What about the Ice Age? Remember that?

Silly Left Wingers. :roll:

passout

I remember my commute this morning - too chilly for my usual T-shirt attire. My middle class guilt tells me it's my fault - I better go and buy some green products & lecture people on 'tinternet....quick before the polar bears drown!

Mothyman

..I've reserved a small place on Mars for my ancestors....

clanton

Crown Jewel wrote:

Clanton, I didn't mean to be philosophical. I just meant that when we say "Save the Planet", what we really mean to say is "Save Us". It is a bit arrogant of us to equate the ability of humans to live on the planet with the ability of the planet itself to survive. Earth will be here after we are gone. We are just another species.

I did understand what you meant. But by the time the world has got to the level where it will no longer support human life (bearing in mind humans have changed little since the last Ice Age, we can survive quite a lot) we will lose a huge number of other species too. A world such as that has zero interest for me.

clanton

Mothyman wrote:

..I've reserved a small place on Mars for my ancestors....

That's a neat bit of time travelling there ;-)

timb64

What's the line from The Matrix?
"Mankind is a cancer on the face of the earth" or something like that.
I agree that the planet will survive long after we've gone and will probably eventually return to a better condition until the next "superior" species evolves to frap it up.

OffTheBackAdam

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2009/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2009
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2009
So, CO2 rises steadily, temperatures static/falling.
Mean global temps down to about where they were in 1990.
Then let's look at some of the predictions about AGW?
Hurricane frequency anyone?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/
(Interesting to see that Al Gore's dropped the slide about hurricanes from his presentation isn't it?)
Arctic sea ice?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Back to 2005 levels.
How about arctic temperatures?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Peak no different from the 50-year mean!
Well, aren't the oceans getting warmer?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/noaas-august-global-record-is-the-result-of-one-data-set/
Sure they are, if you ignore the satellite measurements that point in a different direction.

"WHY THEN DID THE NCDC DELETE THE SATELLITE DATA IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION, ERSST.v3b?

Reynolds, Smith, and Liu write in a November 14, 2008 attachment to their main ERSST.v3b webpage, “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/18/recent-differences-between-giss-and-ncdc-sst-anomaly-data-and-a-look-at-the-multiple-ncdc-sst-datasets/
So, what about the dire predictions of warming for the future?
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/pdo/
Taking into account the natural climate cycles (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadel Oscilation, El Nino Southern Oscillation anfd the like, we're seeing a 0.4C per century contribution from ourselves.
Now, anyone still worried?
So, to answer your original question, it's largely because we object to goverments extracting huge amounts of wealth from the economy & blowing it on useless projects & people and using "Climate Change" as a convenient excuse to do so.

clanton

Adam I've looked at all those links and tbh they are meaningless to me, as they will be to anyone else without specific knowledge in those fields, and of the studies this info came from. I don't see how you can use some of those grphs to prove anything as they stand, they are in isolation and you need baseline information, not to mention the source of the data etc.

finchy

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2009/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2009
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2009
So, CO2 rises steadily, temperatures static/falling.
Mean global temps down to about where they were in 1990.
Then let's look at some of the predictions about AGW?
Hurricane frequency anyone?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/
(Interesting to see that Al Gore's dropped the slide about hurricanes from his presentation isn't it?)
Arctic sea ice?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Back to 2005 levels.
How about arctic temperatures?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Peak no different from the 50-year mean!
Well, aren't the oceans getting warmer?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/noaas-august-global-record-is-the-result-of-one-data-set/
Sure they are, if you ignore the satellite measurements that point in a different direction.

"WHY THEN DID THE NCDC DELETE THE SATELLITE DATA IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION, ERSST.v3b?

Reynolds, Smith, and Liu write in a November 14, 2008 attachment to their main ERSST.v3b webpage, “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/18/recent-differences-between-giss-and-ncdc-sst-anomaly-data-and-a-look-at-the-multiple-ncdc-sst-datasets/
So, what about the dire predictions of warming for the future?
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/pdo/
Taking into account the natural climate cycles (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadel Oscilation, El Nino Southern Oscillation anfd the like, we're seeing a 0.4C per century contribution from ourselves.
Now, anyone still worried?
So, to answer your original question, it's largely because we object to goverments extracting huge amounts of wealth from the economy & blowing it on useless projects & people and using "Climate Change" as a convenient excuse to do so.

Adam - that wood for trees graph that you have presented us - check the values of CO2 concentrations and global temperatures from about 1980 to the present day. That will give you a much clearer view of the upward trends of both values.

For hurricanes, have a look at those graphs and you will see that the number of hurricanes have been dropping for three years, but before that they remained constantly high for the best part of two decades.

In the same hurricanes article, global cooling over the last two years is attributed to La Nina - nothing to do with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. On the homepage of that website, they also admit that hurricane frequency is up, even if strength isn't.

You seem to be resorting to a website (wattsupwiththat.com) which is using data and studies very, very selectively - have a look through the rest of it. Not exactly objective, is it?

Sorry, haven't got time to look at the rest of your links, as I'm off for a weekend at the beach now to enjoy the fruits of global warming.

Have a good weekend everyone

Alain Quay

So, a bit of a dilemma for us then. Either we believe bodies like
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 'which concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation caused most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.'

Or we believe some of the blokes on this forum.

:roll:

dennisn

Alain Quay wrote:

So, a bit of a dilemma for us then. Either we believe bodies like
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 'which concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation caused most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.'

Or we believe some of the blokes on this forum.

:roll:

The only thing that bothers me about your post is the word "interGOVERNMENTAL".
Basically I guess I believe that governments create more problems than they are capable of solving or, to put it another way, it looks to me like they are inventing a problem so they can claim to be able to "save us", or, and this is the most likely scenario, governments are
simply latching on to this "idea" because they believe that the majority of people "care".

clanton

Alain Quay wrote:

So, a bit of a dilemma for us then. Either we believe bodies like
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 'which concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation caused most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.'

Or we believe some of the blokes on this forum.

:roll:

Agreed Alain. I admit that there are some compelling sounding arguments put forward by those who are agaisnt man made global warming. I exclude Adam's stuff above as that is merely mumbo jumbo. Like most I don't have enough knowledge in these fields to judge for myself - but I am scientifically trained and I understand scientific method. I have to rely on the fact that the vast majority of respected scientists and respected journals such as Time and National Geographic are convinced that the changes going on in the world are caused in significant part by man.

That said though - even if Man's contribution to climate change does in fact turn out to be insignificant int the grand scheme of things nobody can deny the advsere effects mand has on his environment in terms of pollution, deforestation, extinction of various species etc. Most of the changes proposed to combat global warming will directly benefit the planet and mankind for generations to come. Amongst other things, changing to renewable energy sources (yes I know thats not easy and I do know about windmills and birds) will reduce dependency on the Middle East, on Russia's gas, and save Alaska's tar fields. Surely everyone could agree that would be good move?

daviesee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Conclusion; the only thing heating up is the debate. :twisted:

Here we go again :shock:

finchy

daviesee wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Conclusion; the only thing heating up is the debate. :twisted:

Here we go again :shock:

Old news. New Scientist ran coverage of how the sun was predicted to go into a decades-long cool period (I use the word "cool" relatively) 2 years ago.