Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

Scientific awareness of the greenhouse effect, and human influence on the climate, has existed for over three decades. During the 1980s, there was a strong environmental movement and a political consensus on the issue, but in recent years, climate change denial - denying that changes to the climate are due to human influence on the environment - has increased.

"Two strong groups have joined forces on this issue - the extractive industry, and right-wing nationalists. The combination has taken the current debate to a much more dramatic level than previously, at the same time as our window of opportunity is disappearing."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/cuot-ccd082118.php

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

A childish effort to link 'climate change deniers' with industries or groups which the climate change advocates also disagree with.

Obviously this is no longer a scientific debate but an effort to 'get votes'.

If you cannot convince with science, try to make your opponents unpopular. Very 'high schoolish' behavior.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

A childish effort to link 'climate change deniers' with industries or groups which the climate change advocates also disagree with.

Obviously this is no longer a scientific debate but an effort to 'get votes'.

If you cannot convince with science, try to make your opponents unpopular. Very 'high schoolish' behavior.

So what do we do with a group that denies evidence because accepting it would mean losing money?

[Keith boyd + 178]

There is also a strong correlation between conservatives and having critical thinking skills. 

And the vast  majority  of convicted pedophiles are Democrats.

I have not found any correlation of flat earthers and any particular group  they seem to come on all stripes however preppers are much more likely to believe 911 was an inside job 

Anyway just sayin you know...

And conservatives are more physically attractive then Democrats and have  higher average IQ

Facts dont care about your feelings have a nice day. 

 

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

23 minutes ago, Keith boyd said:

There is also a strong correlation between conservatives and having critical thinking skills. 

And the vast  majority  of convicted pedophiles are Democrats.

I have not found any correlation of flat earthers and any particular group  they seem to come on all stripes however preppers are much more likely to believe 911 was an inside job 

Anyway just sayin you know...

And conservatives are more physically attractive then Democrats and have  higher average IQ

Facts dont care about your feelings have a nice day. 

 

 

I don’t know, liberal women seem a lot more attractive to me.

[Keith boyd + 178]

But I suppose I should also include a serious response. So let's just pick on one of the dozens and dozens of erroneous claims about climate change. A favorite here in canada is that climate change is making forest fires more extreme. That is what governments, the UN, and climate groups claim the scientists are saying. So let's see what the scientists are actually saying about the forest fire problem in BC.

 

 

Last year, 12,812 hectares of B.C. forest was sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate. It's an annual event — a mass extermination of broadleaf trees mandated by the province.

The eradication of trees like aspen and birch on regenerating forest stands is meant to make room for more commercially valuable conifer species like pine and Douglas fir.

But experts say it also removes one of the best natural defences we have against wildfire, at a time when our warming climate is helping make large, destructive fires more and more common.

 

 

Oops!!!! Looks like actual wildfire experts are saying its herbicide use and poor forestry practices turning BC foreds into a giant kindling pile!  Could that be the cause of the escalation in forest fires?? Maybe we shouldn't carpet bomb BC with roundup just saying. 

 

Surely not according to politicians who have government funded "experts" who aren't actual scientists either. 

 

 I can do this with every bogus climate change claim one by one if you wish. Someone else pick next! 

 

 

 

 

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

A childish effort to link 'climate change deniers' with industries or groups which the climate change advocates also disagree with.

Obviously this is no longer a scientific debate but an effort to 'get votes'.

If you cannot convince with science, try to make your opponents unpopular. Very 'high schoolish' behavior.

You are quite right, the scientific debate has been over for several years now, with the conclusion that the ongoing climate change is caused mainly by human industrial activity. 

Yet fundamentalists (especially right wingers whose "laizes-faire" economic dogma is threatened by the necessity to implement mitigation changes on global level to ensure the survival of the human civilization), and people financially invested into the extraction industry keep conjuring up strawman after strawman to defend their position. 

After all, it took catholics 450 years to admit that Kopernik And Bruno were right, and that earth is revolving around the the sun and not vice versa - long after the scientific debate was over as in this case. 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

37 minutes ago, Keith boyd said:

But I suppose I should also include a serious response. So let's just pick on one of the dozens and dozens of erroneous claims about climate change. A favorite here in canada is that climate change is making forest fires more extreme. That is what governments, the UN, and climate groups claim the scientists are saying. So let's see what the scientists are actually saying about the forest fire problem in BC.

 

 

Last year, 12,812 hectares of B.C. forest was sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate. It's an annual event — a mass extermination of broadleaf trees mandated by the province.

The eradication of trees like aspen and birch on regenerating forest stands is meant to make room for more commercially valuable conifer species like pine and Douglas fir.

But experts say it also removes one of the best natural defences we have against wildfire, at a time when our warming climate is helping make large, destructive fires more and more common.

 

 

Oops!!!! Looks like actual wildfire experts are saying its herbicide use and poor forestry practices turning BC foreds into a giant kindling pile!  Could that be the cause of the escalation in forest fires?? Maybe we shouldn't carpet bomb BC with roundup just saying. 

 

Surely not according to politicians who have government funded "experts" who aren't actual scientists either. 

 

 I can do this with every bogus climate change claim one by one if you wish. Someone else pick next! 

 

 

 

 

Are you seriously trying to blame 4 million hectares of fires on 13k hectares of forest clearing? That logic is seriously flawed. If a steady land clearing was to blame, then we would see a steady number of fires. This is not what we see.

The average annual forest burned is 2.5 million hectares. We saw a 50% increase over this last year and this year is on track for another record. 

‘The amount of land burned is increasing due to changes in the climate.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

So what do we do with a group that denies evidence because accepting it would mean losing money?

I assume you are referring to the climate change fanatics and all the projects and money they would lose if the world realized that the science is not definitive, and the cost to try to redirect Mother Nature is astronomical. The only way politicians can fund this nonsense is astronomical tax increases.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

56 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

You are quite right, the scientific debate has been over for several years now, with the conclusion that the ongoing climate change is caused mainly by human industrial activity. 

Yet fundamentalists (especially right wingers whose "laizes-faire" economic dogma is threatened by the necessity to implement mitigation changes on global level to ensure the survival of the human civilization), and people financially invested into the extraction industry keep conjuring up strawman after strawman to defend their position. 

After all, it took catholics 450 years to admit that Kopernik And Bruno were right, and that earth is revolving around the the sun and not vice versa - long after the scientific debate was over as in this case. 

There is absolutely no way that 'environmentalists' (a misnomer) have enough historical data from 30, 50 or 100 years to prove or disprove that we are not in a natural cycle.

The scientific debate has not been over for several years...unless you simply ignore the 'offending' data.

You do remember that back in the 1970's that these same environmental experts were claiming we were about to enter a period of significant cooling. That was roughly 50 years ago, so what has reversed the 'scientific thinking' in that time?

Follow the money. Who has benefitted from the climate change issue? Al Gore, Bern Sanders owns three houses, etc....

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

So what do we do with a group that denies evidence because accepting it would mean losing money?

EVERYBODY loses money if we are mandated to spend trillions of USD on an unproven theory!

This money can only come from TAXES.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

15 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I assume you are referring to the climate change fanatics and all the projects and money they would lose if the world realized that the science is not definitive, and the cost to try to redirect Mother Nature is astronomical. The only way politicians can fund this nonsense is astronomical tax increases.

I wasn’t actually referring to one side or the other as both sides are making the same claim.

So how do you deal with people who simply refuse to accept evidence?

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

There is absolutely no way that 'environmentalists' (a misnomer) have enough historical data from 30, 50 or 100 years to prove or disprove that we are not in a natural cycle.

The scientific debate has not been over for several years...unless you simply ignore the 'offending' data.

You do remember that back in the 1970's that these same environmental experts were claiming we were about to enter a period of significant cooling. That was roughly 50 years ago, so what has reversed the 'scientific thinking' in that time?

Follow the money. Who has benefitted from the climate change issue? Al Gore, Bern Sanders owns three houses, etc....

Yes, scientists have enough data to say we are not in a natural cycle but a man made one. The biggest hint being the rate of change is so much larger than past cycles.

The debate over the idea that humans are driving the Earth’s temperature higher ended 30 years ago. The only things being debated are the exact contributions from natural cycles and human released CO2. i.e. wether humans are responsible for 75% or 100%, not if we are responsible.

in the 70s, we were entering a period of cooling due to natural cycles. Human intervention with CO2 overroad the natural climate signals that are still trying to produce cooling and caused warming instead. That is what reversed ‘scientific thinking’.

And yes, follow the money, how much money does the oil industry stand to lose if we stop using their products? Far more than the scientists.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

13 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

EVERYBODY loses money if we are mandated to spend trillions of USD on an unproven theory!

This money can only come from TAXES.

No, the money will come from private industry because it saves them money. 

Will it cost trillions overall? Yes.

But it will save money over the 10s of trillions that would be spent maintaining the current fossil fuels infrastructure over the same time period.

[Keith boyd + 178]

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

 

 

We must be looking at different graphs because this one is showing a pretty stable trend in forest fires. Fluctuations are simply that. It's not showing 2018 was last year significantly worse then 1989 and 1995? Even if so, one year is not a trend. Also, as far as more forest fuel to burn, we know co2 increases plant growth so I suppose the extra co2 creates more fuel for fires but the correlation is not the way extremists portray it. 

Hurricane and tornado graphs look similar. They bump up and down but overall the trend is flat. When some climate alarmist politician with no scientific background claims that Florida is being ravaged by juiced up hurricanes due to climate change it's a damn lie.  

Also while I was daydreaming at work (ok I fib I was sleeping in a truck on night shift) I came up with an analogy to blaming the fossil fuel industry for climate change. 

A hardware store sells a burglar a crow bar. The burglar robs a house with it. The owner of the house Sue's the hardware store for selling the burglar a crow bar. 

You will never curtail fossil fuel consumption by attacking the supply side of the equation. It's coming out of the ground and getting burned so long as people demand it. I suggest to climate alarmists  leading by example and show us how to live a low carbon lifestyle. I personally dont go on vacations, take a bus to work, avoid unnecessary trips and wear the same clothes until they are rags.  I do it for the sake of saving money not over some co2 obsession. I also own a large collection of lithium ion power tools, a L-ion  vacuum. And  a lawn mower and I love them. They work awesome. Andthey cost A LOT MORE then the regards type of tools.they are a LUXURY.

None of this is intended to be a personal attack on any other persons posting their opinions here. 

Have a nice day fine sir. 

[specinho + 467]

On 7/9/2019 at 12:49 AM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Scientific awareness of the greenhouse effect, and human influence on the climate, has existed for over three decades. During the 1980s, there was a strong environmental movement and a political consensus on the issue, but in recent years, climate change denial - denying that changes to the climate are due to human influence on the environment - has increased.

"Two strong groups have joined forces on this issue - the extractive industry, and right-wing nationalists. The combination has taken the current debate to a much more dramatic level than previously, at the same time as our window of opportunity is disappearing."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/cuot-ccd082118.php

 

7 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I wasn’t actually referring to one side or the other as both sides are making the same claim.

So how do you deal with people who simply refuse to accept evidence?

To mediate the disparity we have to draw the picture out and involve the Pop from Vatican:

Quote

 On 6/15/2019 at 11:25 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Explain to me please why in the holy hell the damn Pope keeps attacking the oil industry.  Religion should have nothing to do with the oil industry.

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

6 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

We must be looking at different graphs because this one is showing a pretty stable trend in forest fires. Fluctuations are simply that. It's not showing 2018 was last year significantly worse then 1989 and 1995? Even if so, one year is not a trend. Also, as far as more forest fuel to burn, we know co2 increases plant growth so I suppose the extra co2 creates more fuel for fires but the correlation is not the way extremists portray it. 

Hurricane and tornado graphs look similar. They bump up and down but overall the trend is flat. When some climate alarmist politician with no scientific background claims that Florida is being ravaged by juiced up hurricanes due to climate change it's a damn lie.  

Also while I was daydreaming at work (ok I fib I was sleeping in a truck on night shift) I came up with an analogy to blaming the fossil fuel industry for climate change. 

A hardware store sells a burglar a crow bar. The burglar robs a house with it. The owner of the house Sue's the hardware store for selling the burglar a crow bar. 

You will never curtail fossil fuel consumption by attacking the supply side of the equation. It's coming out of the ground and getting burned so long as people demand it. I suggest to climate alarmists  leading by example and show us how to live a low carbon lifestyle. I personally dont go on vacations, take a bus to work, avoid unnecessary trips and wear the same clothes until they are rags.  I do it for the sake of saving money not over some co2 obsession. I also own a large collection of lithium ion power tools, a L-ion  vacuum. And  a lawn mower and I love them. They work awesome. Andthey cost A LOT MORE then the regards type of tools.they are a LUXURY.

None of this is intended to be a personal attack on any other persons posting their opinions here. 

Have a nice day fine sir. 

No, we are looking at the same graph. And it shows a clear trend of increasing land consumed by fire.

I am not attacking anything by the way. Just pointing out established facts.

[remake it + 288]

13 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

We must be looking at different graphs because this one is showing a pretty stable trend in forest fires. Fluctuations are simply that. It's not showing 2018 was last year significantly worse then 1989 and 1995? Even if so, one year is not a trend. 

Had you used “smoothing” then fluctuations would be diminished and a different outcome evident, as suggested by Mr Nerd.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

17 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Yes, scientists have enough data to say we are not in a natural cycle but a man made one. The biggest hint being the rate of change is so much larger than past cycles.

The debate over the idea that humans are driving the Earth’s temperature higher ended 30 years ago. The only things being debated are the exact contributions from natural cycles and human released CO2. i.e. wether humans are responsible for 75% or 100%, not if we are responsible.

in the 70s, we were entering a period of cooling due to natural cycles. Human intervention with CO2 overroad the natural climate signals that are still trying to produce cooling and caused warming instead. That is what reversed ‘scientific thinking’.

And yes, follow the money, how much money does the oil industry stand to lose if we stop using their products? Far more than the scientists.

Apparently the 'debate ended' simply because 'your team' said it did. Always a safe fallback position.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 7/9/2019 at 12:49 AM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Scientific awareness of the greenhouse effect, and human influence on the climate, has existed for over three decades. During the 1980s, there was a strong environmental movement and a political consensus on the issue, but in recent years, climate change denial - denying that changes to the climate are due to human influence on the environment - has increased.

"Two strong groups have joined forces on this issue - the extractive industry, and right-wing nationalists. The combination has taken the current debate to a much more dramatic level than previously, at the same time as our window of opportunity is disappearing."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/cuot-ccd082118.php

@Bill the Science Nerd

Look at the last paragraph. Apparently there is a 'current debate'!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

45 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Look at the last paragraph. Apparently there is a 'current debate'!

Yep.

Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. 

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover. 

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover"practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity. ...

 

... "If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.  ...

 

===============================

PDF of the study attached:

No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change.pdf

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 7/9/2019 at 12:49 AM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

Scientific awareness of the greenhouse effect, and human influence on the climate, has existed for over three decades. During the 1980s, there was a strong environmental movement and a political consensus on the issue, but in recent years, climate change denial - denying that changes to the climate are due to human influence on the environment - has increased.

"Two strong groups have joined forces on this issue - the extractive industry, and right-wing nationalists. The combination has taken the current debate to a much more dramatic level than previously, at the same time as our window of opportunity is disappearing."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/cuot-ccd082118.php

Correlation does not equal causation.

Pic related:

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

But dammit Tom! The science is settled and the debates been over for three decades! What's wrong with your head?

(Bold sarcasm font, in red...)

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

20 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

But dammit Tom! The science is settled and the debates been over for three decades! What's wrong with your head?

(Bold sarcasm font, in red...)

Heh heh, my head feels perfectly fine to me.  Every screw seems to be in place.  Others may disagree about that, though...

 

Ever feel like it is pointless to debate some people?

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

Ever feel like it is pointless to debate some people?

Now here's the scary thought.  That woman (Professor Yinka) is a Professor.  That means she is a Ph.D.  Is it even possible to be a Ph.D. and be so totally stupid?  And if so, what does this teach about Nigerian Universities and their standards?  --- Or, is this all a put-up job?  Am I being naive about - what is that, the Tweet system  (none of which I understand, anyway).   Who makes this stuff up?  Or:  you can't make this stuff up!   Aargh.