rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

people believe in climate change because they went to a "liberal university?"

more evidence of the link between denialism and conspiracy ideation ...

 

I just read that in the USA nearly 1/2 of the cigarettes are smoked by mental health people. Although mental health facilities are beginning to use stop-smoking programs/treatments for these people, it is a very small effort, and the mantra continues to be that people treating alcohol, and drug, and psychiatric issues need cigarettes as a comfort or substitute. So here in the USA about 1/2 of the smokers probably won't fall into the category of 'socially unacceptable'. The other half continue to be a challenge...

 

People who are religious obviously attended religious universities...

 

Nearly every global warming denialist I've encountered also fully embraces two different conspiracy theories, those being "CFC-ozone depletion theory denial" and "DDT-is-harmful theory denial". That's very good evidence that their personalities are prone to falling for conspiracies, the fact that they almost all embrace multiple conspiracies.

It's also obvious how their political cult is the force behind the brainwashing. The common theme among that trio of conspiracies is that those darn environmentalists have to be wrong. Denying AGW theory is just a subset of a mega-conspiracy, something that the hardcore conservative/libertarian church demands from its flock. Environmentalism interferes with the FreeMarketReligion, therefore they must hate environmentalism, therefore they uncritically accept any conspiracy of any sort which gives them excuses to hate environmentalism.

 

I'm apathetic towards climate change which may mean I am a climate change denier. I am not a conspiracy theorist or a free market advocate though.

 

you can claim that, but there is small difference between religious people and environmentalists:

morals:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morals

 

what evidence? show me the evidence you have.

 

you said you almost started smoking because it was so cheap...don't dodge, it's right there in black and light blue!

 

so you ARE against condoms in schools!? good to hear...but MOST libs do like the idea of school kids being taught about sex and given birth control.

 

please..it's not just the Mexicans....people from all over the world want in here.

 

what a silly rebuttal...are you denying that someone that goes to a liberal university would be more liberal than someone that didn't? even you can't really claim not to understand that one!

 

soooo YOU think that non religious people attend religious universities?? of course religious people attend religious universities.

newsflash...engineers went to schools that teach engineering...doctors went to...wait for it...MEDICAL school...

this isn't rocket science but if it's really that hard for you and Cassie to understand, well I can see now why you fall so easily for AGW...

 

stereotyping and sneering superiority complex....you don't know everyone that doesnt' 'agree' with AGW and you don't know everything about those that you do know.

and why is it required that we must 'hate evironmentalism' if we don't believe in AGW?

 

It's not rocket science or quantum physics even, if you burn hydrocarbons it creates C0 which accumulates in the upper atmosphere and blocks thermal radiation from leaving the atmosphere.

 

*sigh*

so what is the perfect temperature for the earth? what it was in 1700? 1850? 1934? who decides? if there has never been such warming, how do you know it's a bad thing? why are you scared of progress and change?

 

How much hydrocarbons were they burning in 1700?

 

You clearly don't understand how science is conducted.

 

A significant (if small) proportion over and above the ability of the planet to reabsorb the hydrocarbons - especially when you consider that they were busing cutting down forests left right and centre - where do you think all those wooden ships came from??

 

A significant (if small) proportion over and above the ability of the planet to reabsorb the hydrocarbons - especially when you consider that they were busing cutting down forests left right and centre - where do you think all those wooden ships came from??
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010e/i3010e02.pdf - page 9

 

Agreed and I touched on that in the reply I just posted.

To answer your question of 'why its a wedge issue' ; Because it can be. Lol! In addition many religious even clergy are pro-green. What chaps my frock is the usual suspect stereotypical, blanket , knee jerk reaction concerning Christians that most liberals (and similar types) hold. Like all fallacies blanket statements (fallacious generalizations) fully invalidates the opinion that follows, no matter the accompany evidences.

reva

 

Try posting WITHOUT the Ad homs - strengthens your case when you do

 

A good question. A better question why did we have an ice age when greenhouse gasses were many times higher more persistent than the current level of CO2? Best question; Why shouldn't we adapt, economically and otherwise to the changing environment instead of destroying national economies fighting nature? The warming and cooling cycle is inevitability that we should prepare for, not fear or attempt to resist, unless we figure out how to put a thermostat on the sun! Lol! The natural cycle has occurred with sine wave predictability* for hundreds of millions of years. We think we can change it? So lets agree to be reasonable, work together internationally so all nations can to adapt to coming change.



reva

 

With all due respect, where in the zillion word Pdf is the information relevant to your claim?

reva

 

you obviously don't know anything about the parameters around social research.

 

graphs page 9 - that is the page with the little 9 in the corner