The climate change denial industry

[Searcher08]

If you think a person is ignorant, teach them.

The only thing IMHO that putting a label on them in this way will achieve is reduce the quality of communication between both people. It is also a bit lazy cause it means instead of addressing their questions (albeit perhaps exhaustively time and time again) you just treat them as a label and respond to that. It can be de-humanising.

[Simulist]

I disagree. Real "denial" isn't conducive to "teaching" or to genuine "communication"… it's really about, well, "denial" — and that's why it is such an apt word.

It's like trying to tell someone that the religion they're believing in is false: no matter how much evidence is presented (and there has been abundant — even preponderant — evidence presented on just this forum alone), people keep on denying anthropogenic climate change.

No matter what.

[Searcher08]

I disagree. Real "denial" isn't conducive to "teaching" or to genuine "communication"… it's really about, well, "denial" — and that's why it is such an apt word.

It's like trying to tell someone that the religion they're believing in is false: no matter how much evidence is presented (and there has been abundant — even preponderant — evidence presented on just this forum alone), people keep on denying anthropogenic climate change.

No matter what.

Problem is, the people on the other side of that equation think exactly the same about your point of view.

It's like trying to tell someone that the religion they're believing in is false: no matter how much evidence is presented (and there has been abundant — even preponderant — evidence presented on just this forum alone), people keep on believing anthropogenic climate change.

No matter what.

I see a very similar dynamic keeping progressives and libertarians from looking at what is in common cause; if you are focused on anthropogenic vs non anthropogenic it misses the fact of climate change - and that the nation of Tuvalu as a microlab to look at how we will ALL respond to climate change points to a level of stupid which IMHO demands a very robust response and labelling is a factor in the way of that.

[Simulist]

Problem is, the people on the other side of that equation think exactly the same about your point of view.

To the degree that there are "people on the other side of the equation" who actually do "think" (and yes, there are some), then you're right: that is a problem. ("Equation" though is a poor word for this, because it implies an equivalency of opinion. Certainly the scientific community perceives no such equivalency.)

But on the whole, the so-called "debate" over climate change is not a discussion about facts and thinking about those facts at all — if it were, there would be overwhelming consensus* that, in fact, climate change is a clear reality. (We have had this discussion about the fact of climate change here at Rigorous Intuition over the course of a number of years now and, at this point, I am disinclined to repeat it. For those who are genuinely interested, it can be read and re-read as necessary.)

Most people are not searching for the truth, however; they're looking for an illusion that can work for them — in this case, the illusion found in the "safe" refuge of denial.

_________
*Among scientists, there is such a consensus.

[wintler2]

'Denier' is of course a label, which is to say a symbol or generalisation, and is always inaccurate to some degree as are all names for all things, and in fact the very idea of things isn't exactly true. Nevertheless, labeling things has kind of caught on, and for good reasons. In the same way as it is handy for me to be able to say 'Bob is a thief' tho he may also be a great saxophonist, it is handy to say 'Bob Carter is an anthropogenic global warming denier' tho he may have done useful work on queenslands sediments. Getting precious about labels is NewSpeak - don't call a spade a spade, thats 'emotive' or 'partisan'. Damn fucking right it is and all the better for it, the modern disdain for passion is a syptom of our malaise not a cure. That said, yes oppose the behaviour not the person, and preferably after finding some common ground with same person.

[Searcher08]

'Denier' is of course a label, which is to say a symbol or generalisation, and is always inaccurate to some degree as are all names for all things, and in fact the very idea of things isn't exactly true. Nevertheless, labeling things has kind of caught on, and for good reasons. In the same way as it is handy for me to be able to say 'Bob is a thief' tho he may also be a great saxophonist, it is handy to say 'Bob Carter is an anthropogenic global warming denier' tho he may have done useful work on queenslands sediments.

Getting precious about labels is NewSpeak - don't call a spade a spade, thats 'emotive' or 'partisan'. Damn fucking right it is and all the better for it, the modern disdain for passion is a syptom of our malaise not a cure. That said, yes oppose the behaviour not the person, and preferably after finding some common ground with same person.

I PASSIONATELY AGREE WITH THIS!!!!

[Elihu]

may i bag this whole debate right here right now? here's the answer: it's irrelevant. and i'll cast the net over peak oil and smart meters at the same time. the dead give-away is the fact that the us military alone spends, last i checked, $200 million a day on gasoline. $200 million a day. on gasoline. this indicates two things to me. one, they're not worried about oil running out. it doesn't matter if it is or not, the only thing that matters is that the us military is behaving as if it is not. and the knock-on conclusion, they could give a rat's a$$ about agw. today's warfare is about the conquest of minds. mental processing. conquest of that real-estate between your ears. not jack-booted thugs. what possible good could it do to enact legislation for the 99% plebes to obey if the 1% is burning $200m a day in gas and blowing stuff up at the same time?

agw-co2 is bad, blanket effect, traps heat, runaway greenhouse, melting ice, global catastrophe. earth's atmosphere: 74% nitrogen, 24% oxygen, 2% co2 and other gasses? so putting a bunch of laws on 7billion plebes is going to affect the 2% of the earth's atmosphere, enough to save the planet from a global meltdown? blame the victim. always blame the victim. got cancer? it's your genetics. your family has a gene. it's your fault, we're just trying to help. co2 is bad. leaving industry aside, every member of the animal kingdom exhales this gas every minute. and every plant ingests it every minute. on the whole globe mind you. <2% of the atmosphere. and it's bad. blame the victim.

so co2 is bad, an exemption is made for breathing, let's regulate industry. internalized the first sales pitch, now the left hook. burining the stuff is bad and oh-by-the-way, it's running very low. we've been pumping it for 100 years we know, just ask us. plebes believe it's bad (guilt) and now it's running low (voluntary amelioration of your guilt) so let's all get behind using as little of it as possible. and to help we've instituted the smartmeters. with smart appliannces, and data over power lines we can put each and every individual on the planet on his own personal power budget. careful not to get out of line. we do employ just enough jack-booted thugs. but we'll switch you off remotely as a punishment first.

i don't know man, if you take the lobotomy you could be perfectly happy in this mental gulag. as far as i'm concerned if the lawmakers and their armies are not behaving according to the same paradigm, it's a scam. plain and simple. there is no debate. oh there's a debate all right. the theories are interesting and intriguing and fun to talk about. they're also totally irrelevant and beside the point of what is actually going on.

are you really concerned about the burning of gas and oil? i'll pose the question again, what kind of society produces a 3-ton suv one year after a 2-1/2 ton suv? if a car ultimately only gets you from point a to point b whence cometh the waste of power energy raw materials to build a bigger one that is not needed? forget 2% of co2 in the atmosphere. this is the question that needs answering. it will be the same answer as to why the us military spends $200 million a day on gasoline.

you can pass all the laws you want, restrict all the behavior of as many people as possible, as far as the planet is concerned it won't make a bit of difference. the debate is fun! but it's a joke. it's irrelevant. unless that's how you like to spend your time, who am i to say...

[wintler2]

Hi Elihu. Before i respond, just fyi: i'm a sincere critic of established climate science, i think the lack of good research on cloud-vegetation coupling (ecology isn't a real science you see, it resists %$&@# quantification) has created a big hole in theoretical and numeric climate models. But existing models still do an amazing job of matching what has and is happening.

the dead give-away is the fact that the us military alone spends, last i checked, $200 million a day on gasoline. $200 million a day. on gasoline. this indicates two things to me. one, they're not worried about oil running out.

you need some rigor for your intuition
New Navy Postgrad Program Aims to Train 'Energy Warriors'
Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations [pdf]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... ion-supply
plenty more out there, let me know if you need help with google.

co2 is bad. leaving industry aside, every member of the animal kingdom exhales this gas every minute. and every plant ingests it every minute. on the whole globe mind you. <2% of the atmosphere. and it's bad. blame the victim.

Ever math much? Are you comfortable using SI mass units to discuss the relative volumes of co2 created by fossil fuel combustion vs. human respiration? If not, we can just use 'a megashitload' vs. 'sweet fuck all'. But really, give that google thing a go, its pretty straight forward..
How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

i'll pose the question again, what kind of society produces a 3-ton suv one year after a 2-1/2 ton suv? if a car ultimately only gets you from point a to point b whence cometh the waste of power energy raw materials to build a bigger one that is not needed? forget 2% of co2 in the atmosphere. this is the question that needs answering. it will be the same answer as to why the us military spends $200 million a day on gasoline.

I'd say a society in the grip of a growthist suicide cult.

Your answer is ... ?
Cos just throwing out alot of unsupported claims and pregnant questions makes it hard to take you seriously, you need to cash some of those cheques your mouth is writing.

[Elihu]

Ever math much?

it was an opinion my straight party-line friend. based on the stated observations. i thought the recommendations obvious. that was selfish of me. i apologize. trying to put too many things together was very narrow minded.

Cos just throwing out alot of unsupported claims and pregnant questions makes it hard to take you seriously,

i can see why you might feel that way.

[Elihu]

did you not see the rant warning? i owned up to it in advance...

[Nordic]

Elihu, the u.s. Military is spending that amount of gas and oil to secure vast vast fields of oil so that wheb the shit really hits the fan, the PTB will still be the PTB.

It takes money to make money.

Also, the military is quite aware of the diminishing supplies of it in spite of their current ability to steal all they need, you can easily look up what they're doing to convert to biofuels, solar generators and that sort of thing.

[wintler2]

Its been said here countless times before but just in case any newbies have missed it, just cos AGW is real and happening doesn't mean carbon trading is a good thing, given the assumptions and parasites of that and most other markets.

Check out billionaire media's spin
The Australian/NewsCorp - Climate sceptics are today's radical rebels

Climate 'scepticism'/reflexive denial is about as rebellious as owning a credit card. The research that article was trying to spin..

Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
When it comes to climate change denial, not all human beings are created equal. As a recent study shows, conservative white males are less likely to believe in climate change. ..

To test for the trend amongst conservative white males, the researchers compared the demographic to "all other adults." Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults. In holding for "confident" conservative white males, the study showed 48.4 percent believe global warming won't happen, versus 8.6 percent of other adults. ..

McCright says, up to 40 percent of all white males in the study sample believe in hierarchy, are more trusting of authority and are more conservative. Conservative white males' motivation to ignore a certain risk -- the risk of climate change in this case -- therefore, has to do with defending the status of their identity tied to the white male establishment.[**OR to some other white male supportive community, eg. worldnetdaily, tea party, that purports to be antiestablishment. ]

This result is bolstered by the Yale University "Global Warming's Six Americas" report for May. The study found that none of the "dismissive" group -- those who don't think the climate is changing or want legislation -- believe global warming will harm the United States in 50 years. The dismissive group also skews male and conservative, said "Six Americas" co-author, Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. ..

I found it interesting how few conservative white males are hard core deniers - only 30%. Given that the deniers are still winning, they must even among white males be concentrated in positions of power, which supports my suspicion that megaproblem denial is integral to the worldview of the alpha alpha males. You don't get the top job unless you can marginalise all doubt in the machine.

[JackRiddler]

whatever happened with acid rain?

It's still falling, just less of it thanks to reductions in sulfate emissions.

Whatever happened to knowing what the fuck you're talking about before you post?

.

[Elihu]

Whatever happened to knowing what the f you're talking about before you post?

i take it you don't buy the trifecta conspiracy theory either?

[Elihu]

It's still falling, just less of it thanks to reductions in sulfate emissions.

i was thinking more of the ad campaign than the phenomena. for you anthropomorphic newbies, that was in the seventies...