Climate deniers - Who are they? What do they believe

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by fogpipe, Oct 23, 2014.

  1. fogpipe Registered Member

    Messages:
    78
    It turns out (according to this study) that they are the same folks who believe, the moon landing was faked:

    The abstract:
    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract

    The study:
    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

    Articles written with the study as a source:
    http://www.livescience.com/23027-li...iracy-beliefs-sparks-conspiracy-theories.html
    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/a-climate-for-conspiracy.html
     
    Captain Kremmen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Define , " Climate deniers "
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    They don't believe climate change is occurring as a result of human activities.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    I think you can divide climate change deniers into two categories, the fools and those who fund them (e.g. the Koch brothers). Folks like the Koch brothers are smart enough to know the truth. But for them it is all about money and power.
     
  8. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Then I agree with them , that climate change has nothing to do with Human activity
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Of course, how could pumping all those green house gases into our atmosphere cause climate change?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    All those glaciers are melting because the planet is getting colder. Yeah....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Well thats the facts jack

    The climate is changing through natural means

    It has nothing to do with CO2 levels increasing
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You have an alternative theory to Quantum Mechanics then?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Yes it's always amused me how apt the name of these brothers is, considering the cock they disseminate about climate change.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Don't feed the troll.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Don't feed the troll.

    This poster's entire modus operandi is to take absurd positions on scientific issues in order to annoy.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Climate change used to be marketed and branded as global warming. Why has there been a rebranding, away from global warming, into the new and improved climate change brand? The analogy would be, why did coke and pepsi need a new label and a new jingle, when the classic labels are so well known?

    Global warming was consistent with a regulation science study. Reality is very complicated, so science tends to narrow and target a single variable, at a time, like temperature, so one can isolate this from other factors. The term climate change is way too flexible and subjective, for a hard science study. The term is designed for marketing, more than for science. This is way too broad for science since it has too many variables.

    As an analogy, the global warming branding was valid science, because it was like looking for specific markers (greenhouse gases) for breast cancer (one specific effect). Climate change is like assuming the same markers (greenhouse gases) are the basis for all known sicknesses.

    As an example, if we assumed the jelly donut causes breast cancer, we would use a narrow study to see if this is true. With the rebranding, the jelly donut is now the cause of headaches, itchy skin, all forms of cancer, baldness, ED, athletes foot and even heart problems. This is not how science works, since how the heck can you connect all those dots to one variable? This is really about marketing a snake oil cure all. If you drink this snake oil, all health problems of the earth will be cured. It is more like folk science and a panacea cure; seed of the dingle berry.

    The original global warming marketing, painted the picture of a hotter earth due to greenhouse gases. This creates the logical image in the mind of the informed layman, of the earth moving toward something closer to average summer than average winter, with more hurricanes and fewer snow storms. But hurricanes are fewer and snow storms got worse in many areas. After scratching their heads, the explanations from the experts weren't as simple for the layman, but got very convoluted, which is harder to grasp.

    The marketeers came up with the new branding called climate change. This brand does not require you explain anything to the low information liberal. It is not for the scientists, since this is one size fits all approach is impossible to prove. It is for the political angle. If anything appears to be different, up or down, left or right and you harp on it enough, via media, this is climate change in the mind of the audience, who then votes for the best singer. This snake oil approach is not how science works but it is consistent with campaign rhetoric and promises.
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You have Republican activist Frank Luntz to thank for that. Luntz advocated the use of the term to Republican politicians and strategists so that it would seem less threatening and they could more effectively argue against it. This was a little over 10 years ago, is part of the public record, and has been discussed publicly by LUntz many times.

    So, yeah, there are facts about this particular choice of words and yes, it was introduced for the purposes of spin, but the spinners were Republicans trying hard to get people to ignore the science.

    Global warming is a great topic, because there are facts of the matter and global warming deniers either do not know the facts and look stupid or they lie about the facts and look dishonest. In either case, they are acting badly.
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Interesting. I didn't know this background to the change in terminology. Perhaps naively, I had always assumed it was a change made by climate scientists, to account for the fact that universal, monotonic, "warming" is not what should be expected, but instead a range of changes, encompassing more extreme - and perhaps individually unforseeable - weather events of all sorts.
     
  18. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Nice that you use a retracted paper:

    In 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted a controversial article linking climate change denialism and "conspiracist ideation"; the retraction was itself also controversial and led to the resignations of at least three editors . In 2014, Frontiers in Public Health published a controversial article that supported HIV denialism; the publisher later issued a statement of concern and announced an investigation into the review process of the article

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media

    It was and remains a poorly produced paper. I would suggest this thread be moved to the cesspool as the paper has no academic standing.

    Read the comments for insight as to why this is such an appalling paper (if its not blatantly obvious on a first read):
    http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
     
  19. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Seriously?

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    And the Koch brothers win again, people are quibbling over names when the real problem is the green house gasses we dump into our atmosphere every hour and the undeniable science which shows it is causing global warming.

    Unfortunately, every time we have a cold period climate deniers see it as proof the planet isn't warming. They keep forgetting or ignoring the disappearing ice sheets and glaciers and the very signficant changes we are wittnessing in our weather.
     
  21. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Undeniable science? Partial quote from comments at Retracted Paper site:

    “From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Phil,

    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
    explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
    we'd still have to explain the land blip.”
    End Snippet

    Want more Climate Deniers?

    Quote: Who would have thought… after adjusting to the data to fit the models, they get a better agreement with the models.
    end Quote

    joannenova.com.au/2014/10/missing-heat-not-in-deep-oceans-but-found-in-missing-data-in-upper-ocean/

    Quote: We might be worried about “two degrees of warming” but people living in 1926 got two degrees of cooling some 88 years after the fact.
    end Quote

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/australian-summer-maximums-warmed-by-200/

    Jo Nova has quite a bit on temp adjustments down under.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Yeah, undeniable science. Emails taken out of context and misrepresented isn't science.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,368
    Actually, the science works the other way around. The models are adjusted to give the best fit to all the data. The models are constantly improving as the data collection improves and as our understanding of all the processes improves.

    I assume that the snipped quote from the email was actually talking about the possibility of a new model and/or new data 'reducing the ocean blip'. That's the problem with quote mining - you never get the full story.
     

Share This Page