Jump to content


Photo

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


  • Please log in to reply
729 replies to this topic

#1 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 23 September 2016 - 1826 PM

As always the cure to climate change just happens to be Marxism. 
 
It is a good thing only religion can debase and corrupt "Science!"
 
 
How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Graham Readfearn
 
Sometimes, climate science deniers will tell you that we can’t predict global temperatures in the future. Sometimes, they’ll say we’re heading for an ice age.
 
Occasionally, contrarians will say that no single weather event can prove human-caused global warming. But then they’ll point to somewhere that’s cold, claiming this disproves climate change.
 
Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.Black is also white. Round is also flat. Wrong is also right?
 
A new research paper published in the journal Synthese has looked at several of these contradictory arguments that get thrown around the blogosphere, the Australian Senate and the opinion pages of the (mostly) conservative media.
 
The paper comes with the fun and enticing title: “The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”
 
Why Alice? Because, as the White Queen admitted: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
 
The three authors, including Dr John Cook, of the University of Queensland, look at both rhetorical and scientific arguments put by deniers.
 
One example is the popular theme that casts “sceptics” as “dissenting heroes” who bravely oppose “political persecution and fraud”. You know, like modern-day Galileos.
 
But the authors write that deniers will also try and convince the public that there is no consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change (there is and it’s us). They write:Either there is a pervasive scientific consensus in which case contrarians are indeed dissenters, or there is no consensus in which case contrarian opinions should have broad support within the scientific community and no fearless opposition to an establishment is necessary.
 
The authors unleash similar jujitsu-style logic on other contradictory arguments and give examples of where the same individuals have apparently argued against themselves.
 
One of the authors’ examples of incoherent logic comes from the Australian geologist and mining industry figure Prof Ian Plimer and his 2009 book, Heaven and Earth – a book favourably cited by the likes of the former prime minister Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
 
On page 278, Plimer writes that “temperature and CO2 are not connected” but, on page 411, writes that “CO2 keeps our planet warm”.According to the authors, their examples of “incoherence” only hold together in the minds of the deniers if you apply types of glue known as “conspiracist ideation” and “identity-protective cognition”.
 
So what’s that all about?
 
Conspiracist ideation, or conspiratorial thinking, is the tendency to entertain suggestions: for example that Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are conspiring to deliberately manipulate temperature data just to make global warming seem worse than it really is, rather than to correct for known issues.
 
An example of “identity-protective cognition” in this case, the authors explain, is where people who advocate for small governments and “free markets” face a dilemma.
 
Accepting the scientific consensus would likely see increased levels of regulation, which challenges their identity as free-market advocates. So instead, the authors argue, the only options open are to either deny the consensus or try and discredit it.Because cutting GHG emissions requires interventions – such as regulation or increased taxation – that interfere with laissez-faire free-market economics, people whose identity and worldview centres around free markets are particularly challenged by the findings from climate science.
 
Lead author Prof Stephan Lewandowsky, an expert in cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, has written several research papers finding links between the rejection of science, “conspiracist ideation” and the belief in free market economic principles.
 
One argument that deniers may try with this Synthese paper is that climate scientists also contradict each other and have offered several explanations for the supposed global warming “pause” or “slowdown” (this was never really a thing).Lewandowsky told me:
 
Phenomena can have multiple explanations – so, for example, it is entirely conceivable that volcanic activity and heat exchange with the ocean though the La Niña phenomenon might have contributed to what has been called a “slowdown” in warming. Similarly, just because contemporary climate change is driven by CO2 does not mean that the sun could not have caused earlier episodes of climate change. The same phenomenon may have multiple causes – but the same cause cannot have contradictory consequences. For example, it would be ridiculous to say that the alleged ‘slowdown’ was driven by La Niña but that La Niña also causes warming. Equally, it cannot be the case that CO2 causes warming as well as cooling. But CO2 as well as La Niña may both contribute to global temperatures.
 
Of course, Lewandowsky and his colleagues are by no means the first to see the many contradictory arguments from deniers. But does he think looking at them in such detail will make any difference?
 
I think that people who deny basic science will continue to do so, no matter how contradictory their arguments may be. However, these pervasive contradictions should caution the media against giving an airing to those opinions.

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguard...ngs-all-at-once


  • 0

#2 Arawa

Arawa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2016 - 1930 PM

...."Accepting the scientific consensus would likely see increased levels of regulation, which challenges their identity as free-market advocates." So how does this explain that the political leadership of most developed nations (AU Liberals, U.S. GOP would be exceptions) are officially in favour of neo liberal style "free trade", decreased business regulations, and are also accepting of GHG reduction policy/climate science?

Also, I've come across climate science "skeptics" who have no interest in trade/business environment issues at all.

I know there is a tendency for the media and other interested parties to squash every issue into a conventional left vs right spectrum, but climate science really shouldn't be treated that way.
  • 0

#3 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 23 September 2016 - 1941 PM

Well the article does specifically call out people who believe in free market economics, which I feel isn't necessary for their point. They could simply argue that it challenges their belief(s) without specifying and it muddying the issue with any political world view. But at the same time nothing in the article comes off as being 'communist' to me. Imposing some kind of regulations on emissions perhaps would be seen as big government in the US, but at best would be socialist or progressive and not at all attached specifically with Kommunism (I feel it would have been more popular to the Millenials if they spelled it with a 'K').

The scientific community in the high 90th percentile think global warming is absolutely a real thing and that's man made. Those who don't believe are entitled to their opinion, the same way religious wack jobs will say the earth is only thousands of years old and do so on a computer designed and created by the same methods and practices that tell them they are wrong.

As an ex chemist and internet developer I real feel those who don't believe in science shouldn't get to have the cool toys science produces.

The best graph of temperature I've ever seen:

http://xkcd.com/1732/
  • 0

#4 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2000 PM

Well the article does specifically call out people who believe in free market economics, which I feel isn't necessary for their point. They could simply argue that it challenges their belief(s) without specifying and it muddying the issue with any political world view. But at the same time nothing in the article comes off as being 'communist' to me. Imposing some kind of regulations on emissions perhaps would be seen as big government in the US, but at best would be socialist or progressive and not at all attached specifically with Kommunism (I feel it would have been more popular to the Millenials if they spelled it with a 'K').

The scientific community in the high 90th percentile think global warming is absolutely a real thing and that's man made. Those who don't believe are entitled to their opinion, the same way religious wack jobs will say the earth is only thousands of years old and do so on a computer designed and created by the same methods and practices that tell them they are wrong.

As an ex chemist and internet developer I real feel those who don't believe in science shouldn't get to have the cool toys science produces.

The best graph of temperature I've ever seen:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

 

Like I said kids, don't go being politically insane. 


  • 0

#5 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2001 PM

And I think that people who set aside the single largest source of heat on this planet as a non factor in climate shouldn't open their pie holes about things they think should be science. 

Also, those that believe quite strongly in the climate change being created by modern society are entirely free to discard their modern technological trappings and adopt a life as a hunter gather who does not contribute at all to the CO2 problem or any of the other pollution problems. 


Edited by rmgill, 23 September 2016 - 2014 PM.

  • 0

#6 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2006 PM

The best graph of temperature I've ever seen:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

What data set is that graph from again?


  • 0

#7 Arawa

Arawa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2042 PM


Well the article does specifically call out people who believe in free market economics, which I feel isn't necessary for their point.[/b]

The best graph of temperature I've ever seen:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

 
Like I said kids, don't go being politically insane. 

Imagine if the alt right started offering pro climate action policy prescriptions like dramatically limiting movement of persons from low carbon (3rd world) to high carbon economies (1st world), or favouring low carbon tech (aka nuclear power), or promoting carbon sustainable "fair trade" (because who can trust the PRC).

Greenpeace/Climate Action would welcome their new found allies with open arms right.... right ?
  • 0

#8 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2108 PM

I like that idea Arawa. However..it's not tenable ethically. 


I really think that despite a clear and intense paleoclimatic effect, changes in solar activity are not properly accounted for in our current understanding of climate forcings due to our ignorance of the underlying physical mechanisms. This underestimation of solar forcing has the inevitable consequence of an overestimation of anthropogenic forcing.


  • 0

#9 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2207 PM

I like that idea Arawa. However..it's not tenable ethically. 


I really think that despite a clear and intense paleoclimatic effect, changes in solar activity are not properly accounted for in our current understanding of climate forcings due to our ignorance of the underlying physical mechanisms. This underestimation of solar forcing has the inevitable consequence of an overestimation of anthropogenic forcing.

 

You really don't know anything about the state of the art understanding of climate effects then.

 

You've learned some bigger words though; that's nice.

 

The free market will do just fine in a warming world - lots of profit to be made selling solar panels to idiots.


Edited by Jason L, 23 September 2016 - 2208 PM.

  • 0

#10 Arawa

Arawa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2315 PM

I like that idea Arawa. However..it's not tenable ethically. 


I really think that despite a clear and intense paleoclimatic effect, changes in solar activity are not properly accounted for in our current understanding of climate forcings due to our ignorance of the underlying physical mechanisms. This underestimation of solar forcing has the inevitable consequence of an overestimation of anthropogenic forcing.


Sure, but I'd prefer if the focus was less on constantly trying to jam science into left vs right political arguments. Mainly because it weakens the possibility of accepting effective ideas if they happen to come from the disavowed/less popular side of the spectrum.
  • 0

#11 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2016 - 2335 PM

 

I like that idea Arawa. However..it's not tenable ethically. 


I really think that despite a clear and intense paleoclimatic effect, changes in solar activity are not properly accounted for in our current understanding of climate forcings due to our ignorance of the underlying physical mechanisms. This underestimation of solar forcing has the inevitable consequence of an overestimation of anthropogenic forcing.


Sure, but I'd prefer if the focus was less on constantly trying to jam science into left vs right political arguments. Mainly because it weakens the possibility of accepting effective ideas if they happen to come from the disavowed/less popular side of the spectrum.

 

 

You can squarely blame America for this one.


  • 0

#12 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0001 AM

Lysenkoism, eugenics, Nazi persecution not only of Jewish scientists but of any scientist who supported relativity, quantum theory, Welteislehre, etc. Everybody does it, and its been going on for a century.


  • 0

#13 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0035 AM

 

You can squarely blame America for this one.

 

Canadian liberals sat it out because you lot spent years of political capitol amalgamating your entire military under one unified homogenous command (and watering it down to next to nothing) AND putting a maple leaf on your flag (as part of your bid to try to appease the Francophones).


Edited by rmgill, 24 September 2016 - 0036 AM.

  • 0

#14 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0039 AM

Lysenkoism, eugenics, Nazi persecution not only of Jewish scientists but of any scientist who supported relativity, quantum theory, Welteislehre, etc. Everybody does it, and its been going on for a century.

 

Lysenkoism single handedly destroyed entire sectors of East Bloc science. We should actually be thankful for it though; without the huge reaping and lack of progress Soviet bioweapons would likely have made it even further that the impressive shit they did accomplish - even more of a mess for the post cold war world to deal with.


  • 0

#15 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0040 AM

 

 

You can squarely blame America for this one.

 

Canadian liberals sat it out because you lot spent years of political capitol amalgamating your entire military under one unified homogenous command (and watering it down to next to nothing) AND putting a maple leaf on your flag (as part of your bid to try to appease the Francophones).

 

 

LOL whut?

 

That's the most flaccid comeback ever. Also the Francophones don't give a shit about the maple leaf........


  • 0

#16 Arawa

Arawa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0258 AM


 

I like that idea Arawa. However..it's not tenable ethically. 


I really think that despite a clear and intense paleoclimatic effect, changes in solar activity are not properly accounted for in our current understanding of climate forcings due to our ignorance of the underlying physical mechanisms. This underestimation of solar forcing has the inevitable consequence of an overestimation of anthropogenic forcing.

Sure, but I'd prefer if the focus was less on constantly trying to jam science into left vs right political arguments. Mainly because it weakens the possibility of accepting effective ideas if they happen to come from the disavowed/less popular side of the spectrum.
 
 
You can squarely blame America for this one.

American dominance of English speaking media would very much give that impression. But weird examples exist everywhere I think. E.g. Plenty of popcorn to be consumed when anti dam environmentalists are labelled "right wingers" (because they are aligned with the recreational fishing sector and tribal interests) by climate change activists.
  • 0

#17 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,800 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0552 AM

Lysenkoism, eugenics, Nazi persecution not only of Jewish scientists but of any scientist who supported relativity, quantum theory, Welteislehre, etc. Everybody does it, and its been going on for a century.


A century? More like always. Always uncomfortable findings have been swept under the rug or otherwise been suppressed. Uncomfortable to the current mainstream narrative, ideology or whatever else keeps the "elite" afloat.
  • 0

#18 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0806 AM

 

Lysenkoism, eugenics, Nazi persecution not only of Jewish scientists but of any scientist who supported relativity, quantum theory, Welteislehre, etc. Everybody does it, and its been going on for a century.


A century? More like always. Always uncomfortable findings have been swept under the rug or otherwise been suppressed. Uncomfortable to the current mainstream narrative, ideology or whatever else keeps the "elite" afloat.

 

 

That's is one of the reasons why I am afraid of life extending therapies. More chances to the human race going into stasis, with no scientific advances.


  • 0

#19 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0913 AM

So, the climate changers launch another ad hominum diatribe, accusing skeptics of doing exactly what the changers are doing...

A perspective from PragerU:


  • 0

#20 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 24 September 2016 - 0937 AM

pfft. As if. How would he know anything about it, he's just an Atmospheric Sciences professor at MIT. He is not a Climatologist. Hell, he probably isn't even a real Scientist. Because All True Scottsm er Scientists know CAGCC is the realz!!!!11!1


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users