Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

I am glad to have a devoted fan... and look forward to some actual contributions that are not trolling, flaming or weak attempts at sarcastic humor.... lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep. I have found it useful to break them down into four types:

1) The climate's not changing
2) The climate's changing but humanity isn't the cause
3) Man is likely warming the climate but the changes won't be bad
4) Man is warming the climate and it's bad but it's too late to do anything about it

It's useful to note that all of those are denying different things - which is why the term "denier" is useful, because it is the one constant in all those positions. It's also notable that most climate change deniers flip back and forth between those sorts of denials regularly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm, a fan or a heckler? Lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any one denier will usually be found in at least two or three of those categories over the course of a two year political interval in the US.
That pattern holds for all politically fraught matters.
If you want to predict which one at any given time, keep track of the Republican Party media feed obsession du jour. The currently trending term for this feature of the Republican base is "reprogrammable meatsticks".
- - -

That compilation of gross ignorance contains almost nothing relevant to global "climate" even, let alone agw.

We do not, for example, have an "emergency stopgap" for agw. Creating a nuclear winter will not stop agw - as the political effects of agw may very well demonstrate.
Neither do we have a global "optimum temperature" for human beings. There is no such thing, globally - and the extreme variability likely under agw, at least in the coming century of it, obviates even the concept.
And there is no such thing as "the new climate" - not for hundreds of years, anyway. The climate is not going to settle into a regime for a long time.

Meanwhile, the costs of adaptation to a constantly changing and generally worsening climate will not "remain moderate" globally - some people will remain lucky through each new development in turn, most will not. The fact that this claim came from the same guy who presented nuclear winter as an option for beneficial global weather modification should be enough to warn of a need for caution with his claims.

You are agreeing with a guy who thinks we can handle torrential rainfall and severe floods and multiyear droughts by building dams and drainage (in Bangladesh and the Great Plains, no less). Who thinks we can handle killing heat waves in China and India by subjecting the entire planet to a nuclear winter. Who thinks farmers can handle growing variability and extremes in the weather by planting different crops, or just move to where they can farm and set up housekeeping. Who thinks that if pests and disease vectors will spread by agw then so will offsetting populations of good plants and beneficial organisms, as a matter of logic. And who omits the ocean from all of his speculations.

The thing to remember about Schmelzer
- aside from the thread relevant observation that like most agw deniers he also harbors a few of the standard rightwing conspiratorial notions about "deep states" and "liberal globalists" and the evils of Clintons and the like
- is that by the evidence here he has very little contact with physical reality. He lives in a world of competing propaganda feeds - not facts. He factchecks nothing. And agw is a fact-founded and fact-grounded issue - that's where the inconvenience of the "inconvenient truth" comes from. It can't be ducked. Boosting the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by 50% - 100% in a couple of hundred years will have severe consequences that we cannot avoid, but only endure.

 

Andy Android doesn't know the difference (as an Android).

 

Yeah...uhm...well... people respond to fearful ideas and situations differently. It takes a lot of courage to look at the science objectively, and even more courage to witness the climate crisis trends occurring around the globe.
A courage that many people simply do not have. So denial, conspiracy theories, heckling, trolling, political manipulation lying etc are all associated with the lack of courage, honesty and objectivity requires.
So I scare people and they respond accordingly... my bad...
Perhaps I should lie more?

 

Until he learns to...know what he knows...at least he is not scared of his own reflection like some...

 

Are you sure? He could have programmed himself to be afraid of his own reflection (te he). Discuss.

 

5. Man and woman are responsible but the man said it was like this when he got there.
Alex

 

The problem with the op is it is a generalisation calling for hate from the mob.
How could anyone know what each person thinks or pretend such a sweeping statement is meaningful.
I believe we have a problem and although we can only use a correlation ( as far as I am aware) to link the change with humans I think assuming the link is more than reasonable.
I also think the Nuclear Power lobby is working it for all its worth..now is that view conspiratorial or a reasonable guess.
Alex

 

It's a reasonable guess but so what? If people are pushing for more nuclear power plants as a result of more "dirty" existing plants because of climate change issues, what would you expect them to do.

If you were involved the the nuclear power plant industry would you do any different?

 

Gladly...
but you first and in the thread that it is being discussed in..
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/andy-the-android-and-self-determination-in-a-deterministic-universe.162373/

 

it could be, because you may be implying that the nuclear industry is attempting to alarm people so it can further it's agenda of more nuclear powers stations...Apparently Westinghouse had gone down hill and perhaps they are getting in on it...to mitigate the fire sale they went through...in 2018
but of course the science is global and not just USA so it is a bit hard to fudge all of them...

 

Yes I agree...but I guess I failed to make my point...My expectation is that to point out the obvious will have people say, from the NP lobby, no we are only interested in saving the planet...that is what we get...a d even stupid folk know that is absolute BS.

Would I do anything different..yes and much better, cheaper and all the while respecting the rights of women and indigenous cultures and build a wall to keep out people with carbon all over their feet. Trying to turn it back on me shows a lack of respect for the point I am making...a point you in your way concede is correct...

I just think this "us and them" mentality is not only childish and immature but hideously counter productive.

The mentality behind starting a thread like this needs to be changed..heck it's not the first time in history that folk needed to be brought on side and guess what taking every opportunity to insult them, and they may deserve it but that is not the point, insulting them will not get you anywhere and not addressing their concerns will not get "deniers" on side....ever.
None of you conceed that even the use of the word " denier" is insulting and is choosen because mainly it is indeed insulting..get real..then when pointed out you all justify it...which is a great way to say to those who feel insulted..well we don't give a rat's what you think so get over it..ok go ahead..ignore the obvious.

If the world goes to hell in a hand cart I for one won't be blaming the deniers but I will blame those with the apparent intelligence, at least on their say so, who should be able to convert the unconverted so progress can be made.

And now just blame the big end of town for their corruption, blame their need for profit and ignore that you all demand a market economy that of course will see the abuse you unhappily point out.


Now I expect because I don't reach the mobs standard of sheer hate and present my own standardised set of insults I must be one of them...turn on the voice of reason if it reasons that an opponent should be won over but not done over.

And don't you think even stupid people respond negatively to hearing news presented thus..."a bush fire burnt down ten houses in Hicksville and "scientists" say to expect more of the same and worse due to climate change.. first do you honestly realise that the people of Hicksville don't like scientists because scientists threaten their world based on their religious beliefs.. heck I think they are crazy but I know force feeding them facts will not, can not change their minds..you need a different approach.. and do you think the good people of Hicksville give a rat's about climate change at that point they are trying to house the folk who lost their homes and could you not think that these stupid people just think for goodness sake give it a break we don't need propagandah at the moment.

The movement has no idea how not to rub people up the wrong way... So now prove my point..tell me my concerns are stupid and unfounded in fact withdraw all respect so I can be content that my views don't matter.

Folk say Al is a con man and that is casually brushed off..now I know what the man did to a degree and as such can conclude he ertainly appeared genuine..yet defending his ability to not practice what he preached ignores the reality of the campaigne against climate change...really there is an opportunity to bring people on board explain it a better way than ignoring the feeling that is out there..now I am reasonable but my responce to Al is ..he must be BS as look at how he lives..now of course he could consume ten times more than he does and it won't effect anything. .But I have said it before and this bears repeating..not only must justice be done but must be seen to be done...you all sit wringing your hands and think denegrating folk will bring them onside..honestly who are the stupid ones.


Alex

 

The point that you are trying to make is to not lump all member of a certain group together however you are referring to all members of the other "side" as "you all".

Who is "you all"?

 

You are in Australia?
Remember...it went this way...global warming ...Yada Yada...next some mob..here is the map where all the NP plants will go that will save the planet...why and how did that even make the news?

My background is law and real estate I see the worst I guess but when you follow the money you get a good idea who is behind the news...who stands to profit for one side to explain why NP is now a Greenies choice and on the other who will lose money...they are the players and they fund the news etc etc etc.
But I accept your point...and I generalise which errodes my credibility..just think of me laying here in pain wanting to share it with the world.

Alex

 

I accept your point I have fallen into the trap I warn others to avoid... that of unsupported generalisation.


You all...Generally all who seek to call abuse while failing to realise such an approach won't get you anywhere.

Alex

 

It's a good point but it also raises the question of how to you handle someone who is wrong (in general). You can refer to Trump supporters as "deplorables" and of course that isn't going to win any of those people over.

Is anything (realistically) going to win the core of his supporters over? Also do you present everything as "both sides have merit"? Some "believe" in Evolution and some believe in "Intelligent Design".

At a certain point you have to call a spade a spade. Sure, it's better not to call people names but surely the more important point is to lay out the facts even when some people just won't hear it.

As they say, you are free to believe anything but the facts remain the same (or "Science" doesn't care what you believe). At a certain point people just have to deal with reality.

 

It's five or six "correlations" and several well defined and intensively investigated mechanisms - beginning with simple and basic physics: CO2 is the main greenhouse gas on the planet, and on a couple of other planets (Venus, Mars) as well.
So essentially agw - anthropogenic global warming (anthropogenic - human caused; global - the entire planet, on average; warming - a continuing and probably accelerating accumulation of energy in the form of heat, also including the acidification of the ocean and some other secondary effects that aren't "warming" but do share the root cause) is established fact - the questions remaining are in the details of what's going to happen.

The "generalization" is a query regarding an insufficiently supported but quite common and widespread observation. The worst it could be is a Fox question - a stealth claim, phrased to duck accountability.
Meanwhile: Hate?
Where does this weird tendency to project emotions like "hatred" unto pejorative suggestions and cynical observations come from? Hatred is not all that common or dominant an emotion among climate change notifiers. Contempt, now - that's more common.

Not calling abuse takes you backwards, these days. The abusers do not moderate their behavior in response to deference and pandering, nor do they respond to civility with civility of their own.

The elephant sized money pile here is in the coffers of the fossil fuel industry. That's the first pile to follow - and the most informative (Exxon, for example, financed investigations into agw thirty years ago and more - and then suppressed their findings, keeping them in house while financing climate change denial in the public and political arena. They used their proprietary climate change info to guide their investments and infrastructure design - drilling platforms that could adjust to increased violence of storms and rising sea levels, fossil fuel deposits in polar areas then inaccessible due to ice, etc. - while promoting agw denial among those who might otherwise regulate and tax their industry to limit and pay for the damage it was doing).

 

Thanks for expanding on my understanding I was just trying to cover the correlation does not proves cause comments I notice which seems a fair point in itself and so I made the point that the correlation although not proof was as far as I am concerned reasonably used to suggest man and the start of burning fossil fuel are most likely the cause of the increase in both temperature and CO2.

Mmmmm so my impression is incorrect?
That's great as it just seemed to me that the use of insulting names etc was akin to hate...

Yes it's good that you see where I was going. But also back then we had all these documentaries about how man started using coal, industry etc and creeping in NP and a developing conclusion that NP was good.. Watching those style of documentaries started me down the road of understanding how seemingly innocent documentaries were often just a vehicle to promote vested interests. I have looked for them on you tube but have not found any but put it this way I did not dream it.
And the main problem is money ..throw enough money at something and guess what..well you know..you would be aware of the various motor car scandals where big money was used to hide reputation destroying evidence... I mean I can't be the only person who believes corruption is the rule and fair play the exception.

Absolutely. But there comes a point where something needs to be done..in USA..You may be unaware but there are many countries, including China, who for whatever reason are making progress...progress that is absent in the US who I expect, without looking at any figures would be high on the list of the top ten polluters world wide. I don't know but something I read recently about who is doing what painted USA and Saudia Arabia as don't seem to give a f**K.

I don't care what excuses you offer but if you can't get everyone on side it is not only the fault of corruption or Christians or deniers ... If you see what I am driving at...and I ask myself why..why can other countries get it together and not US and when you ask..who ever you ask .it is always the other guys fault.. I know more generalisations but really what is the rest of the world to think...you blame the Republicans for example but you don't even have a compulsory vote...now that would be a great place to start don't you think..or to do so would that take away the freedom of being irresponsibly complacent.
So when you finish calling out culprits what is the next step.

So what can you do?

That should be the question...do you think folk are ignorant of what goes on?
But it seems that the bahaviour is just as bad at the bottom and I am back to my observation on waste...in a culture that thinks V8s are necessary, that drag racing is a sport and to spend maybe fifty or even a hundred grand on doing up cars, hot rods restorations whatever...if you think that is not part of the problem I really do not know how to talk to you.

And as I said worst of all you indulge complacency by not requiring every citizen to vote...I don't know why that is such a problem but one could think with everyone voting these folk who you say have all the power may have to act differently..well why not surely it could not get worse.

And look ice you are one of my heros here as is your worst enemy , I was the first member on his web site, you both are very intelligent except when name-calling comes into it..and I try to ignore that..anyways my point is perhaps chill out a bit become cool and rational and try and figure out how to sway the masses ...how many don't vote??? I must look into that...but their apppathy must suggest they are what we call swinging voters..the ones ironically who decide who will take power.
And thanks for your post I feel most honoured that you found something tangible in my post warranting you input.
Alex