psychology of conspiracy theorists

Originally posted by C Hess
Forgive my bruised, hungover brain, but are you saying that too much of anything good, is always good?

Plants are thriving and people are breathing just fine. If there is too much CO2 make your case. I don't think there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, if anything there is not enough.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Plants are thriving and people are breathing just fine. If there is too much CO2 make your case. I don't think there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, if anything there is not enough.

"I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING FAST ENOUGH", yelled the blind biker heading for the cliff.
He looked awesome though, in his biker helmet and dark glasses. His engine roaring like
bad burrito aftermath. And when that unmistakingly jubilant feeling in his gut told him he
was in free fall, he mistook it for upcoming bliss: "AAAW, THIS IS AWESOME! BUT I STILL
DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING FAST ENOUGH!".

I have no idea why I told this story, but I felt that in some small way it may hold relevance.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
But Clair Patterson was considered a fringe nut by many scientists....until he was proven right. There was also a conspiracy to suppress his factual theories as well.

Is it only when conspiracy theories are proven right that they are not scoffed at by people like you? It is easy to be a status quo troll but not so easy to do it and be right. Being ri ...[text shortened]... hat is all that matters to you and kazet, the other troll that decides his opinions with a poll.

But Clair Patterson was considered a fringe nut by many scientists....until he was proven right.

-and most probably proven right because he wasn't one of those conspiracy “nuts” ( like climate deniers etc ) thus we are not talking about the same class of people because he most probably didn't belong to that class.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere. More CO2 is good.

Global warming is also good. I can live with it and so can you. Sonhouse thinks half the population will die because of it but that is because he is a nutjob that believes absurd things because he puts political ideology first and science second. People like that make poor scientists.

We need more CO2 in the atmosphere.

why?

More CO2 is good.

why?

It is no good stating such assertions without stating any premise. You must explain yourself.

I can live with it and so can you.

I can live with one perfectly good leg amputated and so can you. So should we choose this?

Sonhouse thinks half the population will die because of it

-and, if there is a world famine as a result of it which one day there could well be, he would probably be right. Increase incidence of droughts and flooding plus sea level rise flooding all the most fertile agricultural land would threaten our food security and, worse case scenario if we do absolutely nothing, cause a world famine and birth control wouldn't be able to keep up.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Plants are thriving and people are breathing just fine. If there is too much CO2 make your case. I don't think there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, if anything there is not enough.

Plants are thriving and people are breathing just fine.

-and, obviously, nobody is claiming that man made warming would stop all plants 'thriving' and would stop us 'breathing' so that is an extremely stupid comment.

If there is too much CO2 make your case.

The scientific evidence has already made its case -no need for an individual to make it.

I don't think there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, if anything there is not enough.

-based on...what? What is the PREMISE of this claim?

Originally posted by C Hess
"I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING FAST ENOUGH", yelled the blind biker heading for the cliff.
He looked awesome though, in his biker helmet and dark glasses. His engine roaring like
bad burrito aftermath. And when that unmistakingly jubilant feeling in his gut told him he
was in free fall, he mistook it for upcoming bliss: "AAAW, THIS IS AWESOME! BUT I STILL ...[text shortened]...
I have no idea why I told this story, but I felt that in some small way it may hold relevance.

Again, this is the chicken little position. The sky is falling so we must tax everybody, especially the people who cannot afford it. Yes, lets tax the rich and hope taxing the poor will make the rich richer because that is usually how it works.
How does your tax scheme really work? Be specific and don't digress please.

Originally posted by humy

But Clair Patterson was considered a fringe nut by many scientists....until he was proven right.

-and most probably proven right because he wasn't one of those conspiracy “nuts” ( like climate deniers etc ) thus we are not talking about the same class of people because he most probably didn't belong to that class.

Hold on. He was considered a conspiracy nut by many scientists and we are talking about the same class of people. Why the denial? Are you ashamed of something?
I can tell that class means a lot to you. I grew up on a dairy farm so I'm sure you think I am some lowlife man that cannot think properly. Nothing can change your elitist opinion of an egocentric person such as yourself. You are incapable of empathy. You are a typical sociopath.

Originally posted by humy

We need [b]more CO2 in the atmosphere.

why?

More CO2 is good.

why?

It is no good stating such assertions without stating any premise. You must explain yourself.

I can live with it and so can you.

I can live with one perfectly good leg amputated and so can you. So should we ch ...[text shortened]... if we do absolutely nothing, cause a world famine and birth control wouldn't be able to keep up.[/b]

CO2 helps plants grow. It is very simple. Do you have something against plants growing well and producing more food for us?

The leg analogy is pathetic and you know it.

How do you know there will be a world famine as a result? How do you know there will not be increased rainfall in semi-arid areas? You don't! That is fact that so many choose to ignore. This is not about facts like it should be, this is about chosen opinions. Nobody knows what will result because there are too many factors and those that pretend they do know are liars and/or idiots!

Originally posted by humy

Plants are thriving and people are breathing just fine.

-and, obviously, nobody is claiming that man made warming would stop all plants 'thriving' and would stop us 'breathing' so that is an extremely stupid comment.

If there is too much CO2 make your case.

The scientific evidence has already made its case -no need ...[text shortened]... anything there is not enough. [/quote]
-based on...what? What is the PREMISE of this claim?

Actually somebody did make that very claim. I think it was sonhouse. He is the chicken little of GW alarmists. Ask him if nobody is claiming that. I'm sure he will confirm his wacko theories that have no room here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

You say MMGW will always be scientific evidence? Was lead always harmless? Was Patterson always wrong? Was he ever wrong? Of course not, you are just a status quo troll looking to defend what you have always believed. That is what status quo trolls do.

Originally posted by humy

Plants are thriving and people are breathing just fine.

-and, obviously, nobody is claiming that man made warming would stop all plants 'thriving' and would stop us 'breathing' so that is an extremely stupid comment.

If there is too much CO2 make your case.

The scientific evidence has already made its case -no need ...[text shortened]... anything there is not enough. [/quote]
-based on...what? What is the PREMISE of this claim?

There has been more CO2 before man existed than now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm

I have presented this before to you. Have you forgotten?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Again, this is the chicken little position. The sky is falling so we must tax everybody, especially the people who cannot afford it. Yes, lets tax the rich and hope taxing the poor will make the rich richer because that is usually how it works.
How does your tax scheme really work? Be specific and don't digress please.

What the hell are you talking about? Taxes and stuff. I thought this was about global
warming. Are you one of those crazy people I've heard about? You must be, or so the voice
in my head keeps telling me. Taxes, pffft, who can worry about taxes when our grand
children's very future is at stake. 🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Hold on. He was considered a conspiracy nut by many scientists and we are talking about the same class of people. Why the denial? Are you ashamed of something?
I can tell that class means a lot to you. I grew up on a dairy farm so I'm sure you think I am some lowlife man that cannot think properly. Nothing can change your elitist opinion of an egocentric person such as yourself. You are incapable of empathy. You are a typical sociopath.

He was considered a conspiracy nut by many scientists

If that was true, then those 'many' scientists were wrong.

and we are talking about the same class of people.

not if those 'many' scientists were wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
CO2 helps plants grow. It is very simple. Do you have something against plants growing well and producing more food for us?

The leg analogy is pathetic and you know it.

How do you know there will be a world famine as a result? How do you know there will not be increased rainfall in semi-arid areas? You don't! That is fact that so many choose to ign ...[text shortened]... because there are too many factors and those that pretend they do know are liars and/or idiots!

CO2 helps plants grow.

Yes, esp extra amounts in greenhouses.

Do you have something against plants growing well and producing more food for us?

No. Which is why I am all for stopping so much CO2 going into the atmosphere that it will cause floods, droughts and other extreme weather events plus sea level rise all of which will destroy crops and cause food shortages and famines. So, do YOU have something against plants growing well and producing more food for us?

How do you know there will be a world famine as a result?

If we do nothing or not enough, we would get more and more extreme weather events plus sea level rise and this will reduce world food production and, obviously, if we just let that continue and get worse and worse, a point will be reached where there wouldn't be enough food produced to feed everyone and only enough food produced to feed, say, half the world population, then, obviously, that inevitably means a world famine. But the operative words here are “ IF we do nothing or not enough”.

How do you know there will not be increased rainfall in semi-arid areas?

what? All of them? -that would be a huge unlikely coincidence! Or some of them? -probably, but the net result will be the same.
The well scientifically qualified prediction is that rainfall will increase in many areas and decrease in many others and the overall effect will still be less food production mainly because of greater incidence of extreme weather events.

Nobody knows what will result because there are too many factors

False premise and false inference -some people that know a lot more than me and you DO know and the number of factors is irrelevant and there is not such thing as “too many” of them in this context because, no matter how many they are, they can all be incorporated into the climate models.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There has been more CO2 before man existed than now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm

I have presented this before to you. Have you forgotten?

There has been more CO2 before man existed than now.

as some times in the distant past yes. What has that got to do with anything? The fact remains, if we make too much atmospheric CO2 now, we would face harmful consequences for ourselves.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
CO2 helps plants grow. It is very simple. Do you have something against plants growing well and producing more food for us?

The leg analogy is pathetic and you know it.

How do you know there will be a world famine as a result? How do you know there will not be increased rainfall in semi-arid areas? You don't! That is fact that so many choose to ign ...[text shortened]... because there are too many factors and those that pretend they do know are liars and/or idiots!

Possibly cutting down forests at the same time as pumping out vast amounts of carbon dioxide is not a great idea.

I'd beware of complaining about "ad Hominem" arguments in an internet forum, as if you do someone might be bothered to find examples of you doing it in these forums - or even this thread.

The evidence for anthropogenic climate warming is pretty clear. The real question is what steps should be taken to mitigate it. Your implied suggestion of reversing deforestation strikes me as a sensible start. Possibly stopping dumping toxins in the sea (where they interfere with plankton) would also constitute a smart move. In the UK I'm pretty sure that we could make some progress simply by making the rather dilapidated housing stock we have more thermally efficient.

Climate denial seems partly based on the idea that scientists are career building; you are therefore acting - or at least refusing to act - on what in essence is a conspiracy theory.