The latter uses epithets like "alarmist", whereas the former classifies "denial" according to its symptomology for well established patterns of quasi or demonstrated pathological behavior.
Climate deniers - Who are they? What do they believe
- Thread starter fogpipe
- Start date
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
I think that many so-called global warming "deniers" fall into a third category. Although many do not deny that man is producing global warming gasses with our cars, our manufacturing, the cattle that we raise for food and milk etc. , many probably doubt that man's effects on the world are at the present time big enough to overwhelm the vastly larger non-cyclical effects of the sun, changes of ocean currents, and other non cyclic aspects that increase or decrease climate. An example of cyclic changes might be that we enter another ice age, no surprise on a geologic scale, and that its depths of coldness would be a little warmer than it would have been because of the long build up of man's greenhouse gases -- not a bad thing. If we enter another ice age are we going to pump out a lot more greenhouse gases to counteract it, or realize that when the ice age would be over in say 30,000 years, our gases will make the following warm spell, much hotter?
As for me, I might be considered a global warming skeptic, but to do nothing now may be a big mistake -- so I support efforts to reduce global warming gasses as long as the economic impact of such legislation does not cause too much economic stress for too many people: higher electric bills, higher manufacturing costs, higher heating costs, less efficiency, higher costs in general, fewer jobs, etc.
China, for instance, would suffer greatly if they made the same efforts as the U.S. and Europe. How about Russia? Global warming would probably make their country much better and more productive, and raise their standard of living. Canada supports global warming efforts because they support all such "green" efforts, but their economy and standard of living would certainly benefit from global warming, opening up some vast wastelands of now frozen tundra to agriculture, with more oil and mining discoveries and production, etc.
As for me, I might be considered a global warming skeptic, but to do nothing now may be a big mistake -- so I support efforts to reduce global warming gasses as long as the economic impact of such legislation does not cause too much economic stress for too many people: higher electric bills, higher manufacturing costs, higher heating costs, less efficiency, higher costs in general, fewer jobs, etc.
China, for instance, would suffer greatly if they made the same efforts as the U.S. and Europe. How about Russia? Global warming would probably make their country much better and more productive, and raise their standard of living. Canada supports global warming efforts because they support all such "green" efforts, but their economy and standard of living would certainly benefit from global warming, opening up some vast wastelands of now frozen tundra to agriculture, with more oil and mining discoveries and production, etc.
The process by which the Koch brothers and the rest of the fossil fuel industry profiteers have been succeeding in their political campaign to damage the reputations of good scientists, muddle the physical facts on which the agw warnings have been based, create a public perception of he said/she said hysteria and catfighting, and destroy the integrity of public discourse via mass marketed lies, bullshit, and propaganda,yazata said:
should never have been blessed with your faith in their credibility in the first place.
Why are you still paying attention to people who have been caught deliberately deceiving you for their own profit, repeatedly, dozens of times, as a matter of deliberate effort and policy, for your entire adult life ? Amnesia?
Pay attention to people like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes You will find no bizarre ad hominem denunciations, no hysteria, no garbage about "heretics".
Where are you getting the notion that insufficient efforts to reduce greenhouse gas boosting will be free of economic stress, higher manufacturing costs, higher cooling costs, less efficiency, fewer jobs, higher costs in general?forrest said:
You want to see some high costs? Check out the price of failing to handle the current CO2 boost. The idea that we can save anyone economic stress by letting the CO2 boost run wild is just strange - what do you deniers think the consequences of letting atmospheric CO2 levels double in a couple of centuries are going to be? A warmer ice age in five thousand years?
Last edited:
DrkAngel
Registered Member
Global Warming graduated to Climate Change for multiple reasons.
Most notable might be that warming the Pacific ocean, generally, pushes the pacific jet stream northward.
Which tends to push the North American portion of the same jet stream lower, producing periods of notably colder weather.
The Atlantic portion seems to affect Europe similarly.
What seems obviously clear, from statistics, is that this Climate Change is producing more radical storms, droughts etc.
So, while the planet is increasing in temperature, Global Warming does not convey the breadth of the change.
Most notable might be that warming the Pacific ocean, generally, pushes the pacific jet stream northward.
Which tends to push the North American portion of the same jet stream lower, producing periods of notably colder weather.
The Atlantic portion seems to affect Europe similarly.
What seems obviously clear, from statistics, is that this Climate Change is producing more radical storms, droughts etc.
So, while the planet is increasing in temperature, Global Warming does not convey the breadth of the change.
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
I was under the impression that "Global Warming" was a dumbed down phrase of the media (that stuck) in the 70's that scientists then never used.
Near as I can tell, the spectrum includes (at least):
1. Denier
2. Skeptic
3. Accepter of the mainstream position
4. Alarmist
However, since the mainstream position has been moving up the scale over the past few years (the predictions are softening due to the lower than predicted warming recently), a person who previously might have been considered a skeptic might now hold a mainstream position and a person who previously held a mainstream position might now be considered an alarmist. That's a symptom of the real difficulty with this issue -- it isn't the deniers who are really that big of a problem (because there really aren't many of them).
That's all wrong. DNA research and biology are mostly privately funded and very results-driven. AGW research is publicly funded and has insufficient results to compare to the predictions, so insufficient error checking (that comes after a few more decades of data gathering) and no real consequences for being wrong. Any science that is heavily publicly funded relies on popularity to generate funding and jobs. And to be popular, the content they generate must be interesting. And global warming alarmism is interesting. Hence, there is a strong incentive to generate alarmist content/predictions.cosmictotem said:
AGW is a real thing, but so is AGW alarmism and so is scientific misconduct...which then provides fuel for the deniers.
You're saying that "alarmist" is a deragatory term for a type of person who doesn't really exist. That's, at best, naive: every interesting/important subject generates crackpots from all directions. Alarmists most certainly exist.Aqueus Id said:
Further is the complication that it isn't necessarily the scientists who are the alarmists, but the politicians, activists and reporters who take and use the information for profit.
Last edited:
AGW is an important, large, significant reality. AGW alarmism and related scientific misconduct, if it exists, is trivial and insignificant. There have been as yet no cases of scientific misconduct providing fuel for deniers, for example. All of their fuel has been of their own contribution and invention.russ said:
The Republican Party faction of the US Congress is composed of deniers. That is a big problem - they control the House, and cripple the Senate, and prevent even ordinary and prudent political initiative.russ said:
That is not true.russ said:
Bullshit.
Not in the scientific community.
You are correct in that the scientists researching AGW are not alarmists. Do you have any actual examples of profiteering politicians, activists, or reporters? That is a category often referred to, but seldom identified in any reasonable way.russ said:
The hyperbolic agw alarmist usually gets their facts straight - they are reality based.
The main reason was that Frank Luntz found that "climate change" polled as a good term for Republican media manipulators to push in their attempts to deflect taxes and regulations from their financial backers.
That happened in 2003: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Last edited:
Naomi Oreskes, Nature 1994:
Finally, we must admit that a model may confirm our biases and support incorrect intuitions. Therefore, models are most useful when they challenge existing formulations, rather than to validate or verify them. Any scientist who is asked to use a model to verify or validate a predetermined result should be suspious.
http://www.likbez.com/AV/CS/Pre01-oreskes.pdf
Finally, we must admit that a model may confirm our biases and support incorrect intuitions. Therefore, models are most useful when they challenge existing formulations, rather than to validate or verify them. Any scientist who is asked to use a model to verify or validate a predetermined result should be suspious.
http://www.likbez.com/AV/CS/Pre01-oreskes.pdf
DrkAngel
Registered Member
Back to the question ...
Climate deniers ... ?
I would think they could be grouped into various categories ... such as:
The Flat Earthers:
The component thinkers - they build their "knowledge" with bricks of certainty. They learned nothing about CO₂-Climate Change and so are unwilling, or incapable, of changing their beliefs due to their mental constipation (new ideas can't get past the mental walls they have built?)
They can't see CO₂! . So how could it affect ... anything?
The self-serving:
Those who deliberately try to deny Climate Change because they have oil, or fossil fuel, interests and would suffer from restriction-regulation. They actively and aggressively attack any endangerment to their pocketbook.
Not nearly so egregious, there are those dependent on fossil fuels. They cannot allow themselves to believe that they are contributing to Climate Change. They "have no choice" and so delude themselves away from taking responsibility as a subconscious(?) self-defense mechanism.
The Power Mongers
Perhaps the most despicable. They deliberately spread disinformation as a means of justifying there own fossil fuel abuse. They need others to likewise support their way of life as a way of lessening their own responsibility.
The Truly Cruel
Merely to torment "the concerned", they advocate driving 5 mpg SUVs till the Earth is a smog filled oven.
That is a very good quote from a "hyperbolic agw alarmist", as they are called here by some folks. It illustrates my point, above:
The central difficulty seems to be that a certain political faction in the US wants to label anyone transmitting alarming facts as an "alarmist" - and the more alarming the facts, the more "hyperbolic" the transmission of them is said to be.
Last edited:
It won't post for me but 28 years of documented glacier melt is shown here:
http://video.businessinsider.com/ed8010bd-913d-40f3-8bd4-a6261094f142.mp4 - - - That is something for deniers to explain.
You may need to fill with click a "button" the first time at the site - just accept the standard display. Note the 4 Km scale in lower left corner.
Read the associated text - learn those who studied it etc. here: http://www.businessinsider.com/columbia-glacier-28-years-of-global-warming-2014-11 There you can also view the before and after statically (as long as you like).
Below is one more of 22 "before and after" photos you can see here: http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-before-and-after-pictures-of-earth-2014-2#
To see others, click on "See drastic Changes" in lower left of page that comes up with click on the above. Next shows how pine beetle has destroyed a huge forest.
Forest is now warmer so beetle thrives. - Stored CO2 now being released in yet another positive feed back process and waiting for quick "burp" when it burns.
1882 photo taken by G.D. Hazard; 2005 photo taken by Bruce F. Molnia. Courtesy of the Glacier Photograph Collection, National Snow and Ice Data Center/World
http://video.businessinsider.com/ed8010bd-913d-40f3-8bd4-a6261094f142.mp4 - - - That is something for deniers to explain.
You may need to fill with click a "button" the first time at the site - just accept the standard display. Note the 4 Km scale in lower left corner.
Read the associated text - learn those who studied it etc. here: http://www.businessinsider.com/columbia-glacier-28-years-of-global-warming-2014-11 There you can also view the before and after statically (as long as you like).
Below is one more of 22 "before and after" photos you can see here: http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-before-and-after-pictures-of-earth-2014-2#
To see others, click on "See drastic Changes" in lower left of page that comes up with click on the above. Next shows how pine beetle has destroyed a huge forest.
Forest is now warmer so beetle thrives. - Stored CO2 now being released in yet another positive feed back process and waiting for quick "burp" when it burns.
1882 photo taken by G.D. Hazard; 2005 photo taken by Bruce F. Molnia. Courtesy of the Glacier Photograph Collection, National Snow and Ice Data Center/World
Last edited by a moderator:
Conversely, there is a faction that wishes to label anyone who questions any part of AGW as a denier, which is equally invalid,
No, there isn't. There is no faction that wants to label as a "denier" all "questioners" of "any part of AGW". That hypothesized faction is an invention of the media manipulators working for the fossil fuel industry, used to deflect accurate labeling of their own activities.billvon said:
No, it would not be equally invalid unless it were equally based in deceptions, fraud, denial of fact, inculcation of ignorance and misunderstanding, and media manipulation via political and economic pressure. It isn't. AGW alarmism, to the extent it exists ( comparatively trivial - no Congressional representation, for example) is reality based and honestly formulated.billvon said:
Sure there are. I've been labeled a denier because I don't think there's a demonstrated positive forcing from cloud formation, for example.
Barabara Boxer claims that climate change will be the "leading cause of conflict" over the next 20 years - greater than terrorism, greater than Putin, greater than North Korea. Not in an abstract way either, but posing a threat to US soldiers - it will be "putting our troops in harm's way." That's alarmism and it has a good champion in Congress.
It's not alarmist if it's true.
They have a choice: Sugar cane alcohol is CHEAPER per mile driven, renewable, and slightly more powerful in same engine. All the world's cars can be supply with only small fraction of tropical lands growing cane, and creating about a million low skilled jobs for poor who can not now afford to by high-tech goods, so more jobs making them are created too.
The Power Mongers tell you that switching would destroy the rain forests, etc. - all lies. There is more abandoned pasture than required - not one tree needs to be cut. Also food production would INCREASE as to avoid fertilizes costs typically nitrogen fixing crop like soy beans is grown in the cane fields every 5 to 7 years, but often a small amount is used to increase the yield per acre, at least by corporate farmers. Noting like the amount used to speed growth of corn in Iowa's short seasons. Iowa's "gasohol" is more polluting than just using gasoline, as most of this excessive nitrogen fertilizer is converted to NOx by soil bacteria (if it does not run off and make 7000 acres of the Gulf of Mexico dead zones (O2 depleted).
More on why corn to alcohol is stupid here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/so...-nitrite-contamination-of-fresh-water.142751/
Last edited by a moderator:
By whom? Not by anyone around here - or any visible faction on the US scene. The role of clouds is variously and hotly debated within the AGW research and analysis community, including the alarmists, as a matter of routine.billvon said:
How is that "AGW alarmism"? It seems to be merely a projection of current events in critical places (Syria, northern Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Russia, northern China, the Himalayan frontier, SE Asia and the western Pacific generally, etc etc). Meanwhile, terrorism is conflict - not a "cause" - and North Korea has not caused much in the way of actual conflict, probably won't unless its crops fail from bad weather again - people might worry about the consequences of North Korea's share of the climate changes we face, without being alarmists, no? Especially if adding up the total risk the American military now faces in the near future.billvon said:
The same way that saying "climate change won't amount to much, and we don't need to worry about it" is labeled denialism.
That doesn't work: labeling stances for their willful refusal to acknowledge physical reality is not "the same way" as labeling them for aspects of their engagement with reality.billvon said:
As I pointed out above, the denial crowd is simply using the term "alarmism" to describe transmission of alarming facts, alarming reality based analysis and consideration, etc. There is essentially no agw alarmism, properly so labeled.