Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

I wouldn't consider myself a "denier" or whatever other label simple-minded people need to use. I'm just a little skeptical that:
1. It's as bad as they say, since none of the predictive models ever come true.
2. It's not a natural process since there's frozen trees under Antarctica's ice.
3. I need to pay extra for it since I'm more nature-conscious than most people I know, especially the hypocritical left-wing globalists.
4. Giving proceeds from carbon taxes to third world dictators will help in any way, since they're already fraudulent with the current aid they receive.
5. There's no corruption or conflict of interest in any of the studies since all studies are government funded and no skepitcal scientists receive government funding.
6. Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore are the best people to be wagging their fingers at me.
7. Even if we do reduce our "carbon footprint" one volcano eruption can erase all of our progress.
8. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering isn't making it worse.
9. Climate change isn't actually beneficial for some of the poorest places on Earth since some arid places in Sub-Saharan Africa are now the greenest they have ever been.
10. It's all China's fault since most carbon output comes from them.
11. Trees actually need carbon since it's a main ingredient for their food production and our oxygen production.
12. We would just be better off if we stopped deforestation and razing the Amazon Rainforest.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Go ahead and call me names if it makes you feel better and reduces the painful cognitive dissonance in your head.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: FyreByrd

That article is so cute, in so many ways.

Teleology describes a way of thinking that rejects scientific reasoning but instead readily accepts that events occur because of the purpose they serve.

The researchers found no relationship between conspiracy or teleological bias and age, gender, religion or political orientation. But they did find a link with education level. "It is a common finding that the people who are less educated believe more in conspiracy theory," Wagner-Egger said.

Do you perhaps like the condemnation of people that don't believe in mainstream science? That people that don't follow the official lies and deception, like anthropogenric climate change, are somehow less educated or maybe even imbeciles for going against the mainstream scientific peer reviewed pharaohs whom we should worship as all knowing.

Ohhhhmmmmm, praise be Amen, kind of the reptilian gods .... ohhhhmmmmm

Except now, we know "educated" means "brainwashed." So the fact that "educated" people believe this stuff isn't a boon to the arguement.

Two quotes come to mind:

"School is not for smart people."
-Rick Sanchez

"If you're young and not liberal, you're heartless. If you're older and not conservative, you're brainless."
-Unknown

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: Wardaddy454


So You personally think that the environment is in "great shape" and You are fine with leaving that environment to Your progeny? Forget Al Gore gouged the shyte out of the taxpayer, besides those playing the 'left side' will counter with Dick Cheney and the Bushes over @Haliburton™ What do You personally think?


* By all means You can address this as rhetorical


But to type that it is "cyclical and weather and climate fluctuates over time" if the folks at the @WeatherChannel™ say a tornado is headed Your way, do You batten the hatches or sit and look off in the distance and say "Snip, Tornados are cyclical, nothing to see here..."?

Did I say that? Hmm I don't think so.

The climate changes. I'm just skeptical of by how much is our fault, when the solutions come from hypocrites, and always require more taxes.

a reply to: Phage


Well, maybe you can build a better strawman and float away on him.

a reply to: Wardaddy454


If You can't tell, My main concern is folks do their best to 'police their area' and saying/typing/uttering "But China is poisoning everything..." doesn't cut it...

a reply to: Phage

But Knowledgeable Opinions Do Matter Mr. Bootae . Did you View the Videos , or are you just " Above " that ? hmm.....

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Some.

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

Then I stopped.

Well the op is right to an extent.

If I ask you if you believe in man made global warming and you say no you're 99% chance of being a Republican. If you say yes then it's probably 99% chance that you're a democrat. Of course there are some exception and outlyers but that's the way it is.

If you step back and look at that, you must come to a couple of conclusions. One or both sides are brainwashed or one side is made up of idiots. The funny thing to say is "All liberals are idiots! Look at Antifa!" or "of course all budweiser drinking rednecks are idiots!" But those are just memes. Obviously, it's not an idiot issue. It's a brainwashing issue.

So which side is brainwashed?

I always say listen to the scientists and not pundits on Radio or TV. What do you guys think?

It's almost like if you're a conservative you can't say anything about the earth getting warmer or be for anything that's anti pollution. Liberals aren't allowed to say anything negative about climate change research either. LOL Who comes up with this stuff?

I've been called a "denier" more times than I can remember for arguing that a part of the CO2 increase could be natural and many scientists such as Murry Salby, Tom Segalstad, and Jaworoski have had the same treatment

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: Wardaddy454


If You can't tell, My main concern is folks do their best to 'police their area' and saying/typing/uttering "But China is poisoning everything..." doesn't cut it...

Well, they are. But we cleaner countries are expected to foot the bill. No thanks.

a reply to: Nathan-D

We can make a good estimate based on petroleum sales on how much CO2 we release into the atmosphere.

Guess what?

It correlates to the rise of CO2 that we are observing.

If that does not convince someone that burning fossil fuels is directly related to the CO2 spike, nothing will.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

We can make a good estimate based on petroleum sales on how much CO2 we release into the atmosphere.

Guess what?

It correlates to the rise of CO2 that we are observing.

If that does not convince someone that burning fossil fuels is directly related to the CO2 spike, nothing will.

Interesting. So, as an estimate, how much anthropogenic CO2 is in the atmosphere today?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

We can make a good estimate based on petroleum sales on how much CO2 we release into the atmosphere.

Guess what?

It correlates to the rise of CO2 that we are observing.

If that does not convince someone that burning fossil fuels is directly related to the CO2 spike, nothing will.

Yeah, you would think so. But as we are often told, correlation does not equal causation.

We could still give it a try, though. Ban the internal combustion engines. We'll go back to the horse and buggy. It's a shame that rich people will miss their limousines and air travel, but it's for the environment. Kids will get more exercise by walking to school instead of taking the bus. Cops will have to learn to ride horses again.

May as well shut down airports too, since there won't be any planes. I guess that will put the Air Force out of business. Cargo ships will have to remove those diesel engines and install sails. The Army will have to say goodbye to its tanks and jeeps.

It will be an interesting world, but I'm not looking forward to all the horse crap in the streets.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: pavil

The reality of human induced climate change IS A REALITY!

There is some question as to whether this is anthropologically driven climate change. I find that "the science is settled" crowd doesn't contain many actual scientists and is focused on research dollars, hence the vested interest in finding humans responsible. Their attempt to stifle skeptics shows their bias.
Around the year 1000, Greenland was … green. It was not called Whiteland or Snowland at the time. Then we had the little ice age about 500 years or so later. Now we are getting warm again. Maybe the CO2 from anthropogenic sources is doing some of this but how much is unknown. Papers by Professor Baliunas show the suns output leading the CO2 concentrations, historically.
If you like conspiracies, consider that the greatest technical progress is made during wars. People sacrifice to win wars , Congress funds R&D to win wars, and this is an unwinnable war. The cold war gave us the space race and all of the secondary technology. This war is giving us improved electrical generation capabilities, advanced batteries, fuel cells, solar cells [some are getting efficient], LEDs, battery/ultracapacitors and other such and are causing us to rethink many technologies. Much of this wouldn't have happened in a business as usual situation.

a reply to: pteridine

It was not called Whiteland or Snowland at the time.

Correct. Because calling it that would not encourage settlers. Eric wanted settlers.

Then we had the little ice age about 500 years or so later.

Which affected parts of the northern hemisphere. And is attributable mostly to volcanic activity.

While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

www.research.ed.ac.uk...

Papers by Professor Baliunas show the suns output leading the CO2 concentrations, historically.

Has the sun's output been increasing?

a reply to: Phage

Insolation is not constant.

a reply to: pteridine

That wasn't my question.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

That wasn't my question.

The answer is that it is not constant but fluctuates. That means that it rises and falls.

Do you think that "the science is settled?"

a reply to: pteridine

That means that it rises and falls.

Yes it does. On various time scales. Your statement seemed to imply that the current increase in CO2 concentrations is related to Solar irradiance. Did I misunderstand?

Papers by Professor Baliunas show the suns output leading the CO2 concentrations, historically.

Do you think that "the science is settled?"

In that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming? Yes, I do.

a reply to: jrod

Or is it that there is more right wing slanted people's with common sense than people slanted to the left.
I enjoy all the sciences always have . I have been following this pseudo science since the 80s and when they forecast my area would be under water by 2020 from melting of polar caps well its 2018 and the ocean is still 30 + miles away and my town still only a bout 3 or 4 feet above sea level. I understand the climate is changing ,i also understand its Always changing . Do i think people contributing to it sure every other animal on planet is too. Do i beleive in getting carbon tax or credits no because when you monetize something then you will always have people changing results of findings to keep the money coming in. Remember when they used to becoming out with vacines for various diseases ,well pharmaceutical companies have found their is more money to be had from treating illness with drugs than stopping it with vacines. Same thing is going on now with climate sciences people are trying to make money using scare tactics.