How the GW myth is perpetuated


EagleSmack
#2731
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Y'all need to lighten up...

Yup... that's how you make it through your life eh?

You missed a lot.

psst... the colors and shapes were never real.
 
Walter
+1
#2732
Justin Trudeau and the climate alarmists are the fear mongers
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex...e-fear-mongers

Turdoh is an ass.
 
petros
+2
#2733
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...carbon-tax/amp

Why on earth is Trudeau still so committed to the failing carbon tax?

BY LORNE GUNTER

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: JUL 21, 2018
 
darkbeaver
#2734
The Myth is perpetuated by the docile witless masses a cultivated crowd of severely taxed and bowed captive taxpayers.
 
Walter
#2735
Climate Change Alarmist: 'Time to Start Panicking'
https://pjmedia.com/trending/climate...art-panicking/

Wolf!
 
EagleSmack
+1
#2736
New Climate Action Fund open for applications

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases...690919981.html



This is what it's all about! Free Money for Silly Things!


Propose something useless that won't change a thing and you could get up to $3,000,000!
 
DaSleeper
+2
#2737
Gone from stupid to stupider with that religion!
 
Walter
#2738
THOUSANDS MARCH THROUGH THE STREETS TO PROTEST ‘CLIMATE CRISIS’
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/08/en...imate-protest/

Useful idiots.
 
Curious Cdn
-1
#2739

Why Do People Want to Refute Climate Change?
New research sheds light on how threat to the status quo shapes beliefs.

According to NASA, the evidence is incontrovertible that climate change is real and represents a serious threat. Based on studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they report that at least 97% of working climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts" reports unequivocally that climate change has multiple negative impacts on the environment and is extremely likely to be caused by human-made greenhouse gases (go here for the Synthesis Report, IPCC, 2014).y

NASA succinctly presents the evidence for and impact of climate change: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme [weather] events, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover. The psychological effects of climate change have been an area of increasing concern for behavioral health researchers, and the American Psychological Association in collaboration with ecoAmerica report that in addition to negative effects on the environment and physical health, climate change is taking a toll on mental health, "due to trauma and distress due to personal injuries, loss of a loved one, damage to or loss of personal property or even the loss of livelihood," citing higher rates of PTSD, mood and anxiety disorders following natural disasters (Clayton et al., 2017).

Furthermore, many believe we are facing what is referred to as the Sixth Mass Extinction, following Elizabeth Kolbert's 2015 Pulitzer Prize book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, and work by Ceballos et al. (2015) and other research groups, that species are disappearing at a massively accelerated rate, 100 times higher than the baseline extinction rate in the last century, thought to be related to human activity.

How then is it possible that so many people deny the reality of climate change, and the negative impact it is having on the environment, and on our health - as well as the looming, potentially extinction-level threat we face together?

Researchers have been studying how people come to deny climate change. A recent study by Clarke, Ling, Kothe and Richardson (2017), Perceived Mitigation Threat Mediates Effects of Right-Wing Ideology on Climate Change Beliefs, available in pre-print from the Open Science Framework, reviews the existing literature on how political ideology influences attitudes about climate change, and reports new finding based on their survey of 334 US participants, 59.9% of whom identified as liberal, 21.6% as conservative, and the rest in the middle politically.

Clarke and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship among various dimensions of political belief and motivations for denying climate change, noting that prior research has demonstrated a significant correlation between right-wing ideology and climate change denial. In addition to hypothesizing that various components of political belief would be correlated with climate change denial, they predicted that "climate change mitigation threat" (anxiety that efforts to address climate change will negatively impact the socioeconomic status quo) would be a significant additional factor in climate change denial. In other words, researchers expect that people who deny climate change would at least be partially motivated to do so to avoid negative effects on social and economic factors, in spite of being presented with the clear and present danger posed by climate change.

To test their hypotheses, they recruited subjects to participate in a survey of political belief-related factors and climate change denial related factors. They administered the following scales:

1.The Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, measuring a) authoritarian aggression, b) authoritarian submission, and c) conventionalism;

2.The Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale, measuring the "tendency to prefer group-based hierarchy and inequality";

3.The Ideological orientation measure, asking individuals where they fall politically, ranging from "extremely liberal" to "extremely conservative";

4.The Climate Change Mitigation Threat (CCMT) scale, measuring anxiety-related the possible effects on socioeconomic stability due to proposed changes such as higher costs for higher carbon emission, caps on emissions, and the impact on conventional fuel industries from alternative energy sources;
5.The Climate Change Denial scale, measuring four types of climate change denial including a) denial of existence of climate change, b) denial of human cause, c) impact denial and d) climate science denial.

Their findings, representing correlations and requiring follow-up research to clarify causal relationships, are nevertheless fascinating.

First of all, they confirmed that ideological orientation, RWA and SDO were associated with higher levels of climate change denial. The found that CCDT was correlated with all ideological variables as well as with all climate change denial variables. This supports the basic idea that not only is right-wing ideology connected with climate change denial, but it is also connected with reporting greater concern that addressing climate change will upset the socioeconomic status quo.
Furthermore, they found that while SDO and Conventionalism predicted all of the climate change denial factors, the Agression and Submission subscales were not statistically significant on a more complex level of analysis.

Because the threat to the socioeconomic status quo was a partial determinant of climate change denial, this research strongly suggests that political orientation leads to climate change denial for additional reasons such as identification, where conservatives might adopt the prevailing views of the group, including attitudes about climate change. It is interesting, though of unclear significance, that on closer analysis Aggression and Submission were not correlated with climate change denial, especially in the context of measuring contributors to Authoritarianism, highlighting the role of Conservativism over the potentially effects of retaliatory or defensive reactions.

The finding that socioeconomic threat is associated with avoidant coping (denial) is telling because it is another disturbing example of how people can sacrifice long-term health and safety in order to prevent short-term losses. Avoidant coping is generally considered to be maladaptive, for example, and acceptance and reappraisal, forms of active coping, are generally more effective.
Research like this from Clarke et al. is crucial because we need to understand how and why people deny climate change in order to effect positive changes. By understand how various facets of conservative ideology drive climate change denial, we may be able to develop communication and intervention strategies to combat climate change denial, and precipitate greater efforts to embrace comprehensive change across political divides.

Rather than succumbing to partisan conflict (because it generally seems absurd to liberal-leaning people not to address climate change, leading to a conversation non-starter), it may be possible to conduct research and present information which allows for reappraisal of the socioeconomic impact of changing policies related to fossil fuel use and carbon emissions, particularly if persuasive arguments can be made that it will be socioeconomically beneficial in the long run. This approach could foster more adaptive responses based on acceptance and reappraisal, rather than on threat-based assessments and membership-based adherence to group norms. Such arguments have been effective in changing insurance company policies when advocacy groups have demonstrated that spending money up front will save money later, for example showing that treating mental health and addictions leads to significant financial savings in the future by preventing serious physical health consequences.

Research like this may also help liberal-leaning individuals to have greater empathy for their conservative counterparts - which could allow for more constructive dialogue, making bipartisan efforts more likely to succeed. Confrontational or derisive approaches, on the other hand, tend to lead to greater polarization. Finally, given that conservative identification may lead people to adopt group values supporting climate change denial, persuading those conservative leaders who accept climate change as a serious problem to speak out may be an effective strategy to change attitudes over time.

Psychology Today © 2018 Sussex Publishers, LLC

 
Walter
#2740
No one reads long posts.
 
Curious Cdn
-1
#2741
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

No one reads long posts.

You're not bright enough to read or understand an article about the psych-pathology of climate change deniers. They stop just short of declaring it a disorder.
 
Walter
#2742
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

You're not bright enough to read or understand an article about the psych-pathology of climate change deniers. They stop just short of declaring it a disorder.

Ad hominem is a poor argument.
 
MHz
-1
#2743
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post


Why Do People Want to Refute Climate Change?
New research sheds light on how threat to the status quo shapes beliefs.

According to NASA, the evidence is incontrovertible that climate change is real and represents a serious threat. Based on studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they report that at least 97% of working climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts" reports unequivocally that climate change has multiple negative impacts on the environment and is extremely likely to be caused by human-made greenhouse gases (go here for the Synthesis Report, IPCC, 2014).y

NASA succinctly presents the evidence for and impact of climate change: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme [weather] events, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover. The psychological effects of climate change have been an area of increasing concern for behavioral health researchers, and the American Psychological Association in collaboration with ecoAmerica report that in addition to negative effects on the environment and physical health, climate change is taking a toll on mental health, "due to trauma and distress due to personal injuries, loss of a loved one, damage to or loss of personal property or even the loss of livelihood," citing higher rates of PTSD, mood and anxiety disorders following natural disasters (Clayton et al., 2017).

Walnut doesn't like long posts as he loses control of the discussion and long detailed posts usually have a fact or two in them that runs the opposite way to what Walnut wants you to believe. He wants all posts to be as short and meaningless as his are.
While I don't agree with what your post covers it deserves to be read and commented on. If you could bold a few of the most important parts that would help in making a reply as short as possible. The 'list' is just to show that Walnut might be incapable of forming a reply but other posters can look at complex subjects and comment on them in a way that is 'logical', even if it points science is more fantasy than fact these days.

NASA is about space and animations, if they can make an animation that is 'evidence that it is also a fact'. If they can send something into orbit they can send a camera to the moon. If they didn't go to the moon then they never went to Mars either and the Devon Is. story id the 'factual one'.


"climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"
Considering that CO2 is in minute quantities to start with you would have to explain the rise and fall of that same gas going back as far as records allow. You would then have to eliminate those as being 'causes' in this rise. Forest fires add how many 'cars to the formula'? The volcano in Hawaii added how muchCO2 to the air as well as the 40,000 miles of underwater rifts that let our the same amount of gas if not more.
If we stopped all CO2 emissions today and took a reading the amount might not even reverse itself but rise at a slower rate. If you take a reading in a large city the CO2 should be higher. If a reading is taken deep in a rain-forest the O2 reading should be about as high as you can find on the planet as we are not involved in adding O2 to the air.

If minute changes in a trace gas can cause global changes then why could minute changes in O2 not cause changes in us as that is a form of slow strangulation.
When you start looking into those areas you will make progress in understanding how this place works and how we fit in. Ice-age conditions should have seen more plants on the planet and that would mean O2 levels were higher and that would mean the large nose on Neanderthals would have been giving the brain lots of O2 so their brains were working as good as Tesla's did and the surplus food means they grew as large as possible so placing things like the Carnac Stones would have been what 1 person could move and the layout shows it was planned to show higher mathematical skills.
There is no data to show that an ice age that sees the ocean levels drop 400ft is an extinction level event, coming out of one could be one though as that would see the desert belt that circles the globe make a return and there goes 33% of the global food supply as the area the ice leaves does not grow as much food.
That adds up to we should be able to piece together how that comes about and plan to develop the places that will be able to grow 2 or 3 crops a year and abandon the areas that see too much frost to be able to even grow tubular crops. Manitoba would be the first to ice over and the American SW should be the first brown region to go green. See how the current predictions could be intentional bull-shit and all they have to do is throw their hands in the air are say they did their best. If their version of science is a house of cards then that is why 'progress' is so slow. Greed is more important that true knowledge, expensive being something not mentioned as robbery would have to enter the conversation and that would not be good for their side.


evidence for and impact of climate change: - we barely got the data in as weather records for sailing ships and ports have not been added in not has local changes been factored in. We do have ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic and other things that go back a long ways. Mud cores from the rifts to where the outflows meet would also be valuable and quite detailed as far as recording minor fluctuations over the last 200M years


sea level rise, -an ice-age sees the ocean level drop 400ft, to get the water to evaporate is it warmer at the beach and colder once you are on a high hill or a mountain top?


global temperature rise, - that is the end result, it does not cover the million years that it took the Siberian traps raise the 'global temp'. If the average was 7C then the lowest change was 5C and the highest was 10C, in 1 area 76^ of all life died and in the other it was 100% kill ration for all living things.


warming oceans, - the sun can only heat the surface water and the rate is how long it takes for water to cross the Atlantic and how much the water temp rises. That is gone in the same time once it starts to flow north. All the other heat added to the Atlantic comes from the Atlantic Rift over the last 200M years. Take the average temp today as being the change from molten Basalt and you have how many BTU's were released per year over that long of a period of time. That can be done on a global scale also.


shrinking ice sheets, -in the mountains glaciers are said to be retreating but the ice-sheet behind it might be getting more snow than is being lost and the added height is feeling the effects of gravity and pushing out at the weakest spots, the fingers that are 'retreating'. On the coast the rifts would be expanding at a faster rate and that heat rises to heat the rocks under the ice as well as heat the air that is blowing over them. The US would see it as more storms as the water coming down from the UK is warmer than usual when it swings to the west so the sun's added heat is enough to pass the 80F temp mark.


declining arctic sea ice, -an animation of the sea-ice using sat data will show the ice goes in a circle due to ocean currents. Sea-ice can grow so much and then when it comes past the NE side of Greenland some ice is sheered off and sent directly into the path of the Gulf Stream so it melts a lot faster than if it is on the other side of the island.


glacial retreat, -already covered in part.


extreme [weather] events, small changes at both ends of the sale make the transition more violent and more people are reporting event so it seems like things are getting worse when they have been bad for some time.


ocean acidification, = we would need to ass something to the rivers to make then above ph 7.6, if the acid it coming from the rifts it is not something that can be stopped so we need to adapt.


and decreased snow cover. = Less in BC is offset by more falling on Quebec. That is weather change and is neither warming or cooling. When the ice reaches Manitoba that is an 'ice-age'


I'll let you and Walnut get back to it.
 
Walter
#2744
No one reads long posts.
 
Bar Sinister
-1
#2745
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

THOUSANDS MARCH THROUGH THE STREETS TO PROTEST ‘CLIMATE CRISIS’
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/08/en...imate-protest/

Useful idiots.




Unlike you, who comes across as a useless idiot.
 
Walter
#2746
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Unlike you, who comes across as a useless idiot.

Ad hominem is a poor argument.
 
MHz
#2747
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

No one reads long posts.

Huh? Why not fess up and admit you can't read at all. I would say it was the 2 newly paved parking lots that caused that one station to set off the PR scare.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/2...mmer-on-record
Summertime average daytime temperatures hit 22.7 degrees Celsius (72.5 Fahrenheit) at the institute's Clementinum weather station at a former Jesuit college in the capital.
 
Walter
#2748
Ad hominem is a poor argument.
 
MHz
#2749
Nothing compared to having you visit a thread. If you are shy I can open things up for you if you have trouble taking the first step. Pussy footing around never gets anybody anyplace. You may claim to be Christian but your every move is supportive of the OT Jews rather than the NT Scribes. Let's start there is being the driving force behind your hatred that has you making replies to things you admit to having no interest in. Along with that being a confession to being a troll it shows you are part of the creepy side of humanity rather than having an interest in feeding the poor before giving more to the rich. Considering it is money they couldn't spend in a year it is unlikely they will miss it.

Time for greed to make room for 'other toys' .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzGTr-Rxfts
The Railway Dragon
 
Walter
#2750
Ad hominem is a poor argument.
 
MHz
-1
#2751
Now every-time you have a thought start a new thread.
 
Walter
#2752
Rent free.
 
MHz
#2753
Your fact free quality will not be outdone, lol
 
Walter
#2754
Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...mate-breakdown

Can’t make this shit up.
 
petros
+2
#2755
I'll quit eating meat when the rest of earth's animals go vegan.
 
Walter
#2756
Climate Change’s Ever-Shifting Goalposts
https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/10/c...ing-goalposts/

Yep.
 

Similar Threads

42
History or Myth
by darkbeaver | Aug 2nd, 2009
0
The Shortage Myth
by darkbeaver | Dec 5th, 2007
35
How the Myth of Jesus came about
by Dreadful Nonsense | Oct 27th, 2007
17
The Myth of Zarqawi
by vista | Oct 24th, 2004