Man made climate warming deniers are like evolution deniers in several ways:
They believe that it is false because they want to believe it is false and not because of the evidence.
No amount of evidence against their belief ever be enough for them -they have already made up their minds and purely on the bases of their desire.
When presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they simply just use no limit of twitted logic to misinterpret the evidence to fit with their beliefs (just as UniReCyclops has just done).
Both involve religious or quasi-religious dogmas.
In fact, the two have such similar delusional psychology that I can make a prediction here: the proportion of man made climate warming deniers amongst the evolution deniers would likely be much higher than that of the general population and the proportion of evolution deniers amongst the man made climate warming deniers would likely be much higher than that of the general population.
Also, I found this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics
"Within the ranks of elites, climate change denialists are overwhelmingly conservative white males,"
25 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyFrom what I have seen of US conservatives, there is a culture of dishonesty ie they lie, and know that they are lying, for political reasons.
"Within the ranks of elites, climate change denialists are overwhelmingly conservative white males,"
I get the impression that many of the climate change deniers believe that action to deal with climate change will cost them financially via taxes. This is probably largely false ie action against climate change can often be done at a benefit to the country.
Originally posted by twhitehead
From what I have seen of US conservatives, there is a culture of dishonesty ie they lie, and know that they are lying, for political reasons.
I get the impression that many of the climate change deniers believe that action to deal with climate change will cost them financially via taxes. This is probably largely false ie action against climate change can often be done at a benefit to the country.
action against climate change can often be done at a benefit to the country.
Yes; the purely negative way to look at it would be it may (but by far not necessarily) cost the tax payer purely in terms of more tax; the positive way of looking at it, which just happens to be also the more intelligent way of looking at it, is that it would probably create jobs and reduce economic dependency of oil imports from other nations. -and that is just looking at it purely in economic terms which totally ignores the obvious environmental benefits and the less obvious but just as real political benefits (partly from reducing our politically precarious dependency on middle-eastern oil ) and also the health benefits (mainly from less pollution ).
25 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI had a look at the Scientific American article, what it seemed to indicate was a more subtle process. The article talked about a kind of group-think, where they affirm their own identities by believing in the same things as each other, so there's a cognitive bias. They're instinctively against any ecological movement because they associate it with the left. So as warnings about climate change develop those of them who are scientists try to muddy the waters by finding problems with the various green-house theories; which is always possible with any theory. This reinforces the bias enough for them to proclaim the economic argument against reducing emissions. The problem is they simply won't accept there's a problem until it happens and then it will almost certainly be too late.
From what I have seen of US conservatives, there is a culture of dishonesty ie they lie, and know that they are lying, for political reasons.
I get the impression that many of the climate change deniers believe that action to deal with climate change will cost them financially via taxes. This is probably largely false ie action against climate change can often be done at a benefit to the country.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarLearn the difference between weather and climate.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/[WORD TOO LONG]/
[b]North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that’[/b]
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarI forget who said this, but denying climate change based on a weather example is like saying the sun doesn't exist because it was dark last night.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/[WORD TOO LONG]/
[b]North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that’[/b]
But I am sure you know this. So the question is why do you do this? Would you be willing to give us some insight into your psychology?
05 Aug 13
I guess no amount of evidence is going to sway a true believer.
As far as climate change goes (something the earth has always had) I can only view the claims based on what I what I was told back in the 1990's. It seems the 'world is going to end' crowd is all wet.
But as I said, no amount of evidence and unrealized predictions will sway a true believer. Even if weather patterns and global temps do not rise in your lifetime, you will die believing. No amount of evidence will sway your beliefs.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarYou are correct that no amount of evidence will sway a true believer.
I guess no amount of evidence is going to sway a true believer.
As far as climate change goes (something the earth has always had) I can only view the claims based on what I what I was told back in the 1990's. It seems the 'world is going to end' crowd is all wet.
But as I said, no amount of evidence and unrealized predictions will sway a true believer ...[text shortened]... rise in your lifetime, you will die believing. No amount of evidence will sway your beliefs.
The problem is that YOU are that believer.
WE have the evidence.
Also, told by whom back in the 90's?
Because their has been crappy sensationalist reporting (on all sides) of this issue,
just like many others, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to base your opinion of
the science on the crappy media reporting on it.
Particularly 20 year out of date media reporting.
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarWeather is no evidence relevant to climate change. "Climate" concerns weather patterns over long periods of time. Anyone with the most basic knowledge on what climate change is about (regardless of whether or not the predictions of doomsayers are accurate) knows this.
I guess no amount of evidence is going to sway a true believer.
As far as climate change goes (something the earth has always had) I can only view the claims based on what I what I was told back in the 1990's. It seems the 'world is going to end' crowd is all wet.
But as I said, no amount of evidence and unrealized predictions will sway a true believer ...[text shortened]... rise in your lifetime, you will die believing. No amount of evidence will sway your beliefs.
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeCrappy sensationalism? Yep that's how I'd describe it.
You are correct that no amount of evidence will sway a true believer.
The problem is that YOU are that believer.
WE have the evidence.
Also, told by whom back in the 90's?
Because their has been crappy sensationalist reporting (on all sides) of this issue,
just like many others, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to base your opinion ...[text shortened]... science on the crappy media reporting on it.
Particularly 20 year out of date media reporting.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWeather is used as evidence for climate change all the time. Weather becomes climate change when the weather fits what you would like to see.
Weather is no evidence relevant to climate change. "Climate" concerns weather patterns over long periods of time. Anyone with the most basic knowledge on what climate change is about (regardless of whether or not the predictions of doomsayers are accurate) knows this.
Everyone knows this. Have a hot summer! Global warming. Have a cool summer, then you have cool weather. Lol
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat do I gain? A job? Less money being wasted by the government?
No, only those wishing to bias the issue 'know this'. Anyone with any sense, knows it is wrong - yourself included. Hence my question: why do you still do it even though you know you are being illogical? What do you gain?
Do you ever question the validity of people who get money based on the hype?