rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

ok - Anthropogenic global warming.

 

Then sure, there's compelling evidence for it.

 

No it is not = try again

 

I'm not a denier. I simply haven't been convinced by either side of the argument. The whole thing has turned into a political issue and that turns me off completely. If the Earh were now warmer than it had ever been in the past, i too would be worried. That isn't even close to the situation. Climate is cyclical. Science doesn't deny that. We could be contributing to warming. Enough to change the climate irreverisbly? I just don't know. Science doesn't know either. Science theorizes, at least on one side of the argument. Some climatologists believe the next ice age is about 5000 years away. I suspect that might be a bigger problem than the current global warming.

The issue relates to power primarily and truth secondarily. I don't think the truth is evident and I understand the human lust for power pretty clearly. I too remember the global cooling scare of the 1970's.

 

Koch-owned corporations = funding + Heartland Corporation = wattsupwiththat.com, etc. =
media garbage conspiracy

I prefer skepticalscience.com and wottsupwiththat.com

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=144&peer=1

 

Koch-owned corporations = funding + Heartland Corporation = wattsupwiththat.com, etc. =
media garbage conspiracy

I prefer skepticalscience.com and wottsupwiththat.com

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=144&peer=1

 

Why are you using such insulting and condescending language in your response? Could it be that you have wasted your life believing in the church of the Holy Molly the Sky is Falling anthropogenic global warming conspiracy theory? Why don't you realize that there is nothing you can do in your life that will ever accomplish any change in amount of CO2 in the air, let alone contribute anything to humanity if you continue on your current path of obsessive nonsense. Maybe instead of running around like chicken little you could do something positive with your life, like save unwanted puppies, help a homeless person, raise money for hungry children.

You act so freaking smart but by hurling insults and condescending remarks you only demonstrate a lack of intelligent discourse, and an inability to learn from others of dessenting opinions. There is no point in arguing with people like you who are committed to a flawed religious ideology.

 

Let me know when you decide what it is you are talking about. Climate and weather are related.

 

You have a complete failure to understand the difference between weather and climate...that's what you mean, right?

 

qft
qft

 

The problem with the AGW true believers is that they are working off of 100 years of data and using it in much larger cycles and using computer models to predict unverifiable outcomes. The problem isn't deniers ignoring facts, it is the AGWers ignoring reality.

 

you should read your signature, and open your mind to the fact that scientists are better qualified to comment on the meaning of scientific data than denier bloggers are.

 

fine example of what is discussed in the article cited in the OP

 

Being a skeptic and having read the data from both sides keeps me a skeptic. Skepticism (keeping an open mind) is smarter than being a true believer (a person who professes absolute belief in something). I don't deny warming but I have worked in the computer industry since the early 70's and understand the limitations of the models being used and very familiar with the problem of GIGO.

So far AGW is all theory with no verified facts. How much warming is caused by man? No one can say and the computer models that AGW was based on are so far inaccurate. When the models can't even predict current temperatures based on past data, I have trouble believing anything they produce. In fact, they don't even agree with their own outcome so they are averaged to come up with a scenario. So far none of the AGW claims have been verified.

I am willing to change my mind if something is verified other than just hysterical claims of true believers.

Now on to the facts. It has been warmer than this during past interglacials. CO2 levels are on the rise but the temperatures have not follow suit as predicted by the models. The northern hemisphere has been ice free other times before the industrial age. We are currently in a 2.5 million year ice age interspersed with mild interglacials and this interglacial will probably end anywhere from a couple of thousand years or more and nothing we can do will stop it. Most scientists studying this will not bet their careers predicting anything further than 10 years in the future like Hansen, a political activest at NASA has.

Glad you brought that up.

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...e-nasa-scientists-gavin-schmidt#ixzz24qMAGLU4

 

false.

a sceptic would be at least as sceptical of what you believe to be true - more so, based on increasing evidence that AGW is real.

 

Skepticism - the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.

Your "increasing evidence" is wholly anecdotal. Nothing has been proven as fact which leaves plenty of uncertainty.

 

So, a skeptic is someone who believes in global warming because...you do.
Got it.

 

no its not.

you should be sceptical of the people who tell you it is.

 

Yet, even here in some obscure forum all of us skeptics are paid by Exxon.

 

I don't disagree with the study's findings that deniers of "man-made" global warming have a high probability of also believing in "conspiracy theories" but I do find fault with the statement I've retained from the original quotation.

A "Free Market" economy is not a "laissez-faire" economy and many confuse the two.

First is the definition of a Free Market economy:

Next is the definition of Laissez-faire which is best expressed by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

In a pure "Free Market" there is no government regulation whatsoever but that is not the case with Laissez-faire capitalism which does require government regulation to protect the individual's property rights against theft and aggression. Pollution is an act of aggression which violates the property rights of the individual. Laissez-faire capitalism would require pragmatic regulations to limit this act of aggression by enterprise.

Laissez-faire capitalism does limit regulatory intervention based upon pragmatic regulatory infringements but in the case of man-made CO2 emissions there are certainly pragmatic regulations that can be imposed but which haven't been. For example we know that there is "off the shelf" technology identified by the coal industry that can cut CO2 emissions by up to 40% for coal fired electrical powerplants. Pragmatically there should be regulations requiring the use of this technology on all coal fired electrical powerplants because it can be cost effectively implemented.

A laissez-faire capitalist would support pragmatic regulations to reduce all forms of pollution from enterprise whether it's air, soil, or water pollution. The only key to that regulation is that it must be pragmatic in addressing the problems.

 

This confuses local weather predictions with global temperature changes. The predictions of global temperature rising and the planetary effects of that temperature rise have been verified as we've seen a constant increase in global temperatures and diminishing global ice sheets (that were predicted based upon AGW).

 

1. You don't read anything, except Heartland Corp. and Republican RWNJ junk mail. You don't link to reports and studies. You are a DENIER, of facts, science, and discourse. You claim you worked in the computer industry. Apparently, that was after cutting English class, a lot. Was your work at a Fry's?

2. AGW is endorsed, even by oil companies and fracker-lackey, Dr.Richard Muller. To deny AGW, you have to ignore all evidence, of human subversion of environs, including fire, abuse of sequestered CO2 fuels, aversion to CO2-neutral biomass, forest clearing, pollution, and introduction of invasive species, resulting in extinctions. You have to be REALLY OBTUSE.

You qualify, as a DENIER. A skeptic could at least get a link, to some site, which denies the existence, of chainsaws or pollution or cars or factories or extinctions. You've failed, to link.

3. You rant about "hysteria," like a homosexual suitor, which can't take no, for an answer, so you persist in calling anybody who won't go to the bath-house with you a "phobe."

Then you rant out irrelevant facts, without links or any argument, which disproves AGW OR why a rapid rise in CO2 is dangerous OR what CO2 acceleration was, at other times the northern cap was in jeopardy, all of which bear on climate change and how dangerous AGW actually is. You have NO IDEA how any of these measurements work, together.

The current interglacial should be over, ALREADY. Get this through your head! There IS a greenhouse effect. You aren't admitting to this, since you are a DENIER of science and fact. You can't understand, how the CO2 AND THE OTHER GHGs cannot be cleared, in a couple of thousand years. This isn't going to happen, unless you know somebody with a magic CO2 exchange machine, or you know how we are going to re-green deserts and polluted areas, and this re-greening will be maintained, during move, from Phase I of runaway warming, to Phase II, when the Arctic ice melts, every summer.

4. I've seen this stupid letter, several times, and I have yet to see the names, of the hacks, who signed this, since they are hacks, and they have remained nameless.

Any happening scientists have noticed, how any time CO2 concentration rises, rapidly, but not as rapidly as today, a mass extinction event happened. But you and your un-named DENIERS are completely deflecting, what is happening, despite how this letter has been posted on the internet, a lot:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...e-nasa-scientists-gavin-schmidt#ixzz24rDrr7nY

--------------------------------

Tell you what. When you have even ONE LINK, to any report or study, which is worth knowing about, except to practice typing rebuttals REALLY FAST, we'll all know. Your post is garbage, out.

 

Americans on the right, alas, are in a huge stampede away from rationality, sense, decency and everything that makes us human. They probably think that they will thus survive better in the destruction they are bringing down upon us, but I fear that, as a species, we are already extinct people walking. Thank you, Americans!

 

Has your carbon tax resulted in a CO2 neutral alternative to transportation fuels? Converted all power generation to CO2 neutral sources? Has the tax even resulted in a timeline to achive those goals, based on verified designs (not internet hype)? Has Australia stopped exporting fossil fuels?

What is the problem with planting more plants? Does that solution miss some important aspect of the problem?

Has Australia even considered stopping the recycling paper, because of the carbon it sequesters?

 

This has to be one of the funniest replies yet. Since you cannot prove anything you are saying you are reduced to trying to ridicule anyone that does not believe unconditionally in your doom and gloom outlook. You should also realize that engineers are notoriously bad spellers. Get a life dude.

Now that you have claimed that this interglacial should have already been over, got proof? Nope. Nuff said.