rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

Discussion in 'Science' started by cassandrabandra, Aug 24, 2012.

  1. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    interesting that the claims of the new ice age made such a strong impression on you.



    I remember a couple of copies of time or newsweek around 1977 ... this is what it was based on http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling, but I recall reading carl sagan's cosmos around the same time, and he talked even then about "the greenhouse effect" which was already being considered by scientists (and was first floated in the 1890's).

    I know in 1982 I had students doing assignments on "the greenhouse effect" - and referring to articles in time or newsweek. 30 years later we are still talking about climate change, and unlike the flash in the pan of the global cooling theory that you remember so well, based on learning about milankovitch cycles, there is research and supporting evidence from a whole range of disciplines gathered over decades.

    I guess if you identify as a fungi, you might like being kept in the dark and fed on bullshyt. :)
     
  2. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,317
    Likes Received:
    6,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually man would be better off if his watse were recycled on land instead of water. It would avoid a lot of water contamination.

    With human waste... cholera, e-coli, and other bad bugs have to be considered, but many can be filtered out naturally. Other than my obsessive hobby of farming I also work for a company that builds equipment for sewage treatment and a lot of plants are switching to using land to recycle rather than water.


    If you buy organic (and many other foods) you are eating foods grown in S(*)(*)t. They even put chicken manure and feathers in pig feed. It is very high in protien. They also put arsenic in chicken feed to increase growth.
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,237
    Likes Received:
    2,970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And once again, the same thing over and over again. Ignore anything unconfortable, and insult and belittle any that do not agree with you.

    Why am I not surprised?
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot of GW theories are thrown out there and if it supports AGW, the true believers gobble it up as fact even after it has been proven invalid because they simply assign anyone and anything that counters their true belief to be unworthy of scrutiny. I am older than you and remember clearly the global cooling discussions in restaurants at the time. About 10 years later during a warm period, James Hansen went to congress using a warm summer as the backdrop for his pet theory just as the warmers are coming out of the woodwork now after another warm summer.
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,132
    Likes Received:
    79,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    MARC MORANO!!!

    [​IMG]

    You are claiming you know nothing about the common mantra spouted by denialists (so common that they are listed) and yet you are quoting from one of the most infamous greasy money takers of all time!!

    There is sooooo much more out there!!!

    [video=youtube;JFnhTo6Wd80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFnhTo6Wd80[/video]

    This !#@#!@# person posts the emails of climate scientists and encourages people to "write and tell them what they think"

    If there is an unadulterated research paper or a single true fact on that website it is crying for loneliness


    Hmmm guess what? That is part of the models that climate scientists use!
    Nope! What makes you a denialist is failure to cite any literature other than blogs and a tendency to post Ad Homs when you run out of science
    Didn't read my links did you?
    See Berkely Earth Surface Temperature http://berkeleyearth.org

    ummm - Did Morano tell you that was what was being done? Because if he did he is very very wrong!!


    You didn't read my links did you?

    You know a skeptic looks at BOTH sides - I clicked on and read the Morano muck (needed an anti-emetic but I did it) then you should do US the courtesy of reading our supporting literature
     
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes.

    Even granting the dubious idea that the underlined phrase has any objective meaning, the parallel is hopelessly retarded, since even if such things were tested exclusively by computer models, said models would presumably be based on millions of case histories, whereas climatologists don't have even one.
     
  7. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,317
    Likes Received:
    6,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are more than computer models. There is the lack of ice in the arctic, the loss of land ice in Greenland, the migration of animals, the rise in sea levels, the measure of temperature worldwide, the melting of glacier ice, the lowering of PH in the ocean, the exponential growth of deserts....to name a few.

    You can say it is man made or natural...that is up to you...but it is happening....the world is getting warmer.

    We will soon be finding out how fragile the food chain is.
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,237
    Likes Received:
    2,970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Forgive me, but I do not even know who he is. And I can honestly only admit to knowing the name of 2 people involved in the "Climate Debate", Al Gore and Nigel Calder (Al Gore for obvious reasons, Nigel Calder because of watching his documentaries as a kid).

    I do not go around reading the radical claims of either side, and have absolutely no idea who is who or saying what.

    However, you seem so obsessed that I know who he is, so I tried to look him up. Hmm, not even on Wikipedia, so he must not be anybody of importance. I find a reference about him at climatedeport, but seeing their front page I simply closed it, this is not the type of site I use for a source. But if that is the type of site he runs, no wonder I do not have a clue who he is. As I said, I do not go around paying attention to radicals on either side, and he very much is one.

    So nice try to discredit me, to bad it is a fail.
     
  9. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not for testing the AGW hypothesis, there isn't - granting of course the dubious premise that it can even be called testing.
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,132
    Likes Received:
    79,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And to me Al Gore is merely an ex politician from America - we do not hear much from him hear but we do hear a lot from "Lord" Monckton - now there is a man who truly represents the sceptics!!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

    But you do not live in a vacuum and the fact that you are so accurately able to replicate those same denialist myths suggests that you HAVE been exposed to them at some point - possibly through some right wing radio jock
    However YOU were the one who posted a link to his site as a source - if you do so you should stand by that source

    I could entertain you all day about his shifting statistics, use of the "Oregon Petition" and other "shell game" antics but do look for yourself - read these denialist sites, compare them to the science backed sites and decide for yourself - that is what a true sceptic would do.
     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,132
    Likes Received:
    79,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  12. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    473
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    there is a huge difference between believing in Climate Change and believing that Humans cause the climate to change and can control the climates changes through their behavior. I guess you have to think scientifically to understand this. Nothing has been proven to show that humans have changed the natural cycle of the climate or that they through their actions can have any significant effect to slow or stop the natural cycle. This IS a fact. All studies and findings that attempt to prove we are the cause and/or that we can significantly alter the course are only hyporthesis at this time. While changing our use of fossil fuels, reducing their use, may have an effect on Global Warming according to the hypothetical findings of some studies; even those findings show the effect to be extremely minimal and to take thousands of years to have any significant effect, hypothetically. Please don't make your judgement on the information you receive from the news media, rather I urge you to start your own research without a biased view.
    To research this you need to look to websites that report historical data on the Earths Climate cycles since recorded history, studies with attempting to prove and disprove the theory that humans caused Global Warming and/or can change, slow or stop warming trends, the past cooling and warming cycles of the Earth and so on.

    There is too much money and politics attached to this issue for us not to believe the issue is being reported with bias. The side that believes humans cannot control global warming without paying 2-3 times more for our energy and further destroying jobs and our economy have nothing to gain by saying so. But, those political figures invested in green energy have much to lose if laws that hurt/tax/regulate; gas, oil and the coal industry are not passed. IMO no industry should be subsidized by tax dollars and investors will invest in industries that have the best economic viability and profit. To inject politics into this equation is wrong as us citizens have absolutely no imput.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,681
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't be absurd. AGW theory has and is being tested in a number of ways, and always passed with flying colors. For example, if the temperature doesn't rise in the long term, that would conclusively disprove AGW theory. If the stratosphere had failed to cool, that would have disproved it. A lack of tropospheric warming in all layers, a lack of ocean warming, a lack of a decrease in the outgoing heat flux, a lack of polar amplification, all would have disproved AGW theory. Yet AGW theory predicted all those things ahead of time, and they all happened as predicted. That's good science. And that's why AGW science has credibility, because it keeps making predictions that come true.

    In contrast, your theory can't be tested at all, mainly because you won't even give a theory. The political conspiracy theories that you parrot aren't even sensible enough to be called pseudoscience. How about you act like a scientist and show the courage of your convictions. Exactly what is your theory that explains the current warming, and what predictions does it make?

    (And no, "I HATE ALL YOU DIRTY LIBERALS!" is not a theory, no matter now much you want it to be.)
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,681
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. It's pure wishful thinking on your part, unsupported by any shred of evidence. It's as far from scientific thinking as one can get.

    You can't just wave your hands around and yell "Natural cycles!". That's running from the question. If you don't precisely identify the natural forcing at work, you're not doing science. You may as be babbling about how we haven't proven the fairies don't control climate, so AGW theory must be wrong.

    Exactly what natural forces are causing the warming now? Be very specific. We know it's not the sun, and it's not orbital factors, or cosmic rays, so just what is it? And then make predictions based on that theory. You know, do what the actual scientists have been doing with AGW theory for decades.
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,132
    Likes Received:
    79,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Bacteria have changed the climate in the past (google Archean period)

    Yep! Sure do!

    Errr - so all those research papers are wrong???

    Nope! It is an opinion - especially since it is not supported
    Wow! You have read ALL studies and findings on climate science?? I mean the IPCC quoted over 6,000 papers in the AR4 and by the sounds of it you have read more widely than that to come to this conclusion correct? However you are correct that all studies are hypothesis but then so is every study ever run - THAT IS WHAT RESEARCH DOES IT TESTS HYPOTHESIS

    If you have an alternative hypothesis that fits the data then please contact the NOBEL foundation - they have a prize just waiting for you
     
  16. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I see no point in suffering fools gladly when the evidence is clear.

    This thread is about the links between rejection of climate change theory and conspiracy ideation.

    I have yet to see any evidence refuting this.
     
  17. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly!

    Why do so many wish to ignore the obvious?

    What is the possible downside risk of doing 'something'?
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,237
    Likes Received:
    2,970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And this is pretty much where my belief comes in. Being really into geology as a kid, to me an enjoyable day in the summer was going out collecting fossils or searching around cinder cones for unusual finds (specifically lava bombs). And when I lived in California I often went to places like the San Andreas Fault, exploring the things there and along other smaller faults.

    As I said many times, my beliefs in the climate are not based upon conventional "contemporary science", but in a geological scale. People in the current debate are discussing differences over a few decades, while I look at time frames of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. And I hear the fantastic claims ("we have never been hotter then we are now!", "the ice caps are melting!", etc) and see them as very ignorant. And when the people who make such claims can't even come to a concensus as to what has caused the shifts over less then 1,000 years, I give them very little credability.

    Much as when people scream and yell about much of anything. "Y2K!", "Chinese Aircraft Carrier!", "AIDS!", "Jewish Conspiracy!", "Masons!", etc, etc, etc. The more I see people jump up and down and yell and scream, the more I start to question them. Because I see people trying to drive the discussion purely on emotion, and not hard factual science. And if you question their science (as I have here), you get accused of being part of the conspiracy.

    Personally, I am more worred about the Yellowstone Caldera then I am about "Man-made Global Warming".
     
  19. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This says everything about its author that needs saying.

    Why indeed?
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,237
    Likes Received:
    2,970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is not really an argument. In fact, it is something that only an individual with a completely closed mind and unwilling to even consider another opinion would say.

    "Why would so many wish to ignore the obvious? Blacks are obviously inferior, because look at how they live!"

    This is why I generally reject and ignore those with such viewpoints. To you things are 100% decided, therefore no discussion is possible.
     
  21. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so why DO so many denialists have such closed minds that they reject scientific evidence, yet embrace conspiracies?
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,132
    Likes Received:
    79,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    As Mamooth has said - you cannot wave your hands in the air and yell "natural cycles"

    But since you are misquoting so badly what science DOES say and in fact coming close to what right wing media jocks say scientists say, well I would guess that maybe a visit to actual science instead of blogs and political hacks might just be worthwhile
     
  23. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Americans elected a Flake in 2008
     
  24. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]

    FYI this past decade is when AGW was supposed to take off.

    The stratosphere would cool under numerous theories including the Svenmark hypothesis.

    [​IMG]

    We have a general cooling in the upper troposphere, cooling in the middle of the equatorial troposphere between 10N and 5S and cooling in the lower southern troposphere starting at 20S all the way into the antarctic. Aint ignorance grand? It allows you to say what ever the hell you want.

    [​IMG]

    The only "ocean warming" that was ever "observed" was when we switched over to the ARGO system. Of course hacks would chose to let the stupid people believe that the ocean suddenly gained 8X10^22 joules of energy in the 3 years we just happened to be switching over to the ARGO system. The rise was a result of instrumentation nothing more. Its just hacks that refuse to correct for the switch over to a new data set.

    [​IMG]

    NEXT!!!


    There are two poles. And if you honestly beleive Hansens lies about hte arctic then I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. FYI the arctic cant increase beyond freezing. The laws of physics prevents it. So when Hansens says that the arctic was 4 degrees over freezing. HE IS LYING HIS ASS OFF. That is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing impossible!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Moving on there are two poles genius.

    [​IMG]

    NEXT!!!

    So AGW theory is disproved.
     
  25. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,681
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That sad and somewhat dishonest cherrypicking frenzy was the best you can do? You really are as desperate as you appear.

    Will any of the denialist cultists act like scientists and post their theory to explain the current warming?
     

Share This Page