Climate deniers - Who are they? What do they believe

fogpipe

fogpipe

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

The abstract:
NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax

Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
Click to expand...
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
 
fogpipe said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
river said:
Then I agree with them , that climate change has nothing to do with Human activity
Click to expand...
Of course, how could pumping all those green house gases into our atmosphere cause climate change? :)

All those glaciers are melting because the planet is getting colder. Yeah....:)
 
joepistole said:
Of course, how could pumping all those green house gases into our atmosphere cause climate change? :)

All those glaciers are melting because the planet is getting colder. Yeah....:)
Click to expand...

Well thats the facts jack

The climate is changing through natural means

It has nothing to do with CO2 levels increasing
 
joepistole said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it's always amused me how apt the name of these brothers is, considering the cock they disseminate about climate change.
 
joepistole said:
Of course, how could pumping all those green house gases into our atmosphere cause climate change? :)

All those glaciers are melting because the planet is getting colder. Yeah....:)
Click to expand...

Don't feed the troll.

This poster's entire modus operandi is to take absurd positions on scientific issues in order to annoy.
 
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.
 
wellwisher said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
PhysBang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
PhysBang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
 
milkweed said:
Seriously?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Click to expand...
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.
 
joepistole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
milkweed said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, undeniable science. Emails taken out of context and misrepresented isn't science.
 
milkweed said:
Quote: Who would have thought… after adjusting to the data to fit the models, they get a better agreement with the models.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top