study shows climate deniers know facts but just dont care

Post Reply New Topic

Study says political and religious beliefs trump reality. Go figure


http://www.iflscience.com/brain/politic ... c-literacy

No, they only put their beliefs ahead of academic consensus.

Their brains are just wired differently.

Which is usually (including in this case) the same thing.

Sometimes they are just clueless about climate change... so put them in charge of it! as per this: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt262796.html

I think Conservatives have found a way to clone stupidity.

I could reply with how many times SCIENCE proves there is no "global warming" (and indeed, they now call it "climate change" to keep the fearmongering ongoing).

I could reply with how it's been proven that the "climate change" scientists were exposed hiding and lying about data to bolster their positions.

I could reply with the proof that other planets in our star system are undergoing glacial recession (where there is surface ice).

All of this, yet it's all about "climate change deniers" on this forum.

The whole "environmentalism" BS was started when the cold war ended to ensure we would destroy a given percentage of GDP now that military spending on the cold war was gone. The people wanting this also see it as a way of imposing their desired social change on the planet, and many new ideas that do nothing to deal with the environment are marketed as combating "climate change."

As I say, I'll defend "saving the trees" when the abolish paperback college textbooks.

One college already has.

http://archive.wired.com/culture/educat ... 2/08/53747



Are the trees in Iowa now worthy of being saved?

There are no trees in Iowa, just corn. Hence, they can't make books.

Thanks for the article.

My point is that the "environmental crisis" is largely engineered.

Burden the average person with onerous environmental regulation while stuff 10-30 times more harmful (documented) to the environment gets no regulation. Elites screaming (save the trees) when they destroy how many (because they can't go 100% recycled) to mandate people buy books they neither want nor need for the next 6-12 months.

Add in the numerous scandals and exposures of "climate researchers" lying about findings and trying to conceal evidence that disproves their public assertions, and my opposition to "climate change consensus" is based on the knowledge that there is as much (or greater) "big money" and "big politics" agenda behind it as so-called "climate change deniers" are accused of.

That's just not true. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm


They have been innocented http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

Again, not true. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

You certainly denying what is a reality. You should propably inform yourself with better sources.


The idea that "big money" is behind "climate science" is just ridiculous. The true is that the Koch brothers got big pockets. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/09/20/let-those-global-warming-dollars-flow/

Take the out-of-context arguments of climate deniers, their made up arguments, their tendency to contradictary arguments and ludicrous elementary school science rhetoric ("CO2 is plant food", I don't make it up. ). It become pretty clear that any rational person should reject climate denial.


If their doing that for the environment this is pretty stupid. Trees can regrow and books can be reclycled, but it's difficult to recycle old electronic equipment, and their production bring a lot of pollution as well as consumming some rare and exhaustible ressources.

Regarding their counter-arguments:

1) The sun isn't the only extraterrestrial heat source that could warm a planet. Earth's core is 4,230 miles across and 50% denser than iron, making it sensitive to all sorts of weak radiation. Even the cosmic neutrino background (if it exists) is a possible contributor. We didn't have neutrino detectors until quite recently, so there would be nothing to compare the current rate to if we can measure it. There's also talk of dark matter clumps in the space that Earth passes through causing increases in the frequency of asteroid impacts. If dark matter exists and is patchy, cyclic gravitational shock could heat a planet a lot.

2) If we don't have good data on Mars' ice caps from before the 1970s, we also don't have good surveys of Earth's polar ice from that period. NASA just released a re-discovered Apollo photo from their archives in the hope that it would improve estimates of Arctic ice melt.

3) We don't have very good data on Earth's surface temperature, for a few reasons:

- Temperature is one of the least standardized quantities. There is no ISO standard for temperature measurement. There is no thermal equivalent to the meter-bar. The only way to correlate old readings to new ones is to find the original instrumentss.

- It's hard to measure because it's a composite index of different types of energy that propagate at different rates through different media. A block of steel or polycarbonate will have different temperatures from end to end, and from inside to outside.

- Weather stations were designed to track storm cells, not to measure global surface temperature. That matters when you're quibbling over tenth of a degree. They're unlikely to have exactly the same heat-gain properties as the surrounding environment, and they're not placed uniformly.



Academic funding in the US is roughly comparable to our spending on weapons. In a lot of countries it accounts for quite a bit more. If the munitions industry can be accused of trumping up threats to boost demand for their wares, then why not academia? Climate change helps them in two ways: It provides a justification for more grant money, and the engineering busy-work will employ graduates who aren't skilled enough to be design engineers (most of them).

I'm sorry to say I have grown very weary of all this global *whining*.

Perhaps not, but it's the only one with a plausible mechanism.



Academic funding in the US is roughly comparable to our spending on weapons. In a lot of countries it accounts for quite a bit more. If the munitions industry can be accused of trumping up threats to boost demand for their wares, then why not academia? Climate change helps them in two ways: It provides a justification for more grant money, and the engineering busy-work will employ graduates who aren't skilled enough to be design engineers (most of them).[/quote]
Spending on oil massively outstrips spending on environmental science. The "research budgets" of oil companies massively outstrip spending on environmental science!

Global warming is a hugely unpopular concept. This is obvious, because even though it is quite clearly true, there are still many people who can't face that truth. Even the people who accept it mostly wish it wasn't true, because let's face it, it is bad news. I totally understand why people would want to distort or ignore the facts so they don't have to think about the issue.

Essentially, there's no plausible motivation for an environmental conspiracy, as governments who try to introduce policies to fight climate change find that those policies are hugely unpopular, because they bring the financial cost of living closer to the true cost. Indeed, Western governments generally act as if climate change is not happening - for example, the UK government is considering another runway at Heathrow, and our Environment Secretary is an explicit denier.

Could environmental scientists be screening out any science that doesn't support them? In theory, that's a possibility - but in practice, no. Not only is there a wealth of funding from industry for research that appears to show that the world isn't actually getting warmer (so funding isn't an issue), but there are journals that will happily publish almost anything in order to be able to charge to publish it and get advertising money, even if it fails peer-review. Given how highly cited and prestigious a paper that threw a major spanner in the works of current environmental science would be, I think even Science or Nature would try to publish it (unless the peer reviewers could actually find some faults), and smaller papers would jump at the chance.

False. Temperature is one of the most standardized quantities.

Temperature is defined by the scale Kelvin (K) as one of the 7 base units by the International System of Units (Not ISO, which deals with proprietary, industrial and commercial standardization) as the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water". The thermodynamic temperature is in itself defined by the third law of thermodynamics.

(BTW, the metre isn't defined by the metre bar, but as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... Base_units


Then it is a good thing that global warming is not only supported by measurements from weather stations (... and from weather balloons... and from satellites), but also from more than 170 different independent records of measures of temperature based on corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments and historical documents.

See the following:

Anderson, D. M., Mauk, E. M., Wahl, E. R., Morrill, C., Wagner, A. J., Easterling, D., & Rutishauser, T. (2013). Global warming in an independent record of the past 130 years. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(1), 189-193.

http://www.environ.sc.edu/sites/default ... on2013.pdf