slug.com slug.com

13 6

Are Climate Change Deniers really control freaks?

In numerous articles I have noticed an interesting correlation to Climate Change skepticism (I find denial too emotionally charged, which is probably it's goal) and free speech advocacy and Yes Gun Ownership. In fact a Climate Change skeptic is most likely to be considered a dangerous loose cannon who is is a control freak, and feels that they can single handedly take on the world. But is this really true?

As someone with an old school scientific mind, who works by experimentation, I have spent some time considering and testing this, and while I will not be tackling any part of the issue of climate change, for one side of the other, I do want to explore the reasons why a person may hold on to the view that seems to be in opposition to the "established science" of climate change.

Is it possible that our politics, or our philosophy forces us to one side or other of topics? I will ignore the Big Oil Money argument, as the expenditure on the Pro Climate change is even bigger, and I doubt your average gun loving, free speech advocate gets to see much of this so called spending. but could our politics dictate our worldview?

So lets look at some common claims and consider them.

  1. They are usually right wing. Basic evidence seems to support this, even though I have met some very left leaning skeptics, Most skeptical people are Right wing. so maybe. A neo-liberal, libertarian or conservative, is much less likely to just accept that governments are able to solve the worlds problems, They don't tend to follow crowd, but rather have social groups, that respect their right to live an independent life. They view the IPCC with suspicion, because its the UN, and run by politics. So - I think Yes you are more likely to be a skeptic, and less likely to follow the line, if you think that governments are basically incompetent. (or at least full of too many incompetent people.

  2. They only read views that agree with them. This must be the most common label, Arrogant and uneducated, Not well read, Give them a book or a movie. But in my research, I have found that skeptics are able to explain and challenge theories, and demonstrate remarkable skills in seeing the holes in an argument. They are usually well read, and like all area's of science, often get "Facts Wrong" but then again, the same is true of the proven science, where the "facts are often just as wrong" - This is why we have to update our textbooks every year, as the old facts are now out of date. In fact a skeptic is more likely to read a pro climate change story, than a climate change believer is to read a climate change rebuttal piece. Books are more likely to sway someone away from climate change, than too it, if a person reads both. So - I Think NO! You are more likely to be well researched as a skeptic, than a believer.

  3. They like to feel in control. I struggle with this one, as I am not really sure what this is trying to infer. But the reasoning seems to be that because they love to have guns to make them feel like they can defend themselves, they must also like to dominate others, and as they are willing to defend themselves and their views, then they hate the thought they might not be in the right .... Or something like that? So are they in control. And here is my problem magnified, there are really 3 types of skeptic, Its all a hoax; its happening, but not that bad, and its been worse; and Its happening, but we can't change it. and this really says it all. The Climate change embracer, is firmly of the belief that we, have such mastery of the planet, that we can change it at will. and its only our will stopping us. The Skeptic feels the universe is bigger than their feeble efforts, and feels that nature is far bigger than them. So how are they putting themselves in control? In fact I think the Climate change embracer is the one trying to be in control. So - NO!

My last interesting finding, was that people with engineering backgrounds, Tradesmen, Mechanics and the like, those who like to see how things work were more likely to be skeptical in whole or part, while those who did administration or clerical work were most likely to be embracers. I also found Older persons were more likely to be skeptical, siting previous movements they had joined, only to see the science turn and disappear. Younger people were more idealistic, but could not explain how any change would make a difference, nor could they offer ideas of what they would change.

So what is the main characteristic of the pro climate changer - My common finding was fear. Man will let us down, We can't trust people, we must trust science (but could not explain what science was) as if it was a religion.

The main characteristic of the Skeptic, was trust in the person as an individual, DIstrust of the group, and no trust in the Government, But divine trust about 70/30 in favour.

So in reality, It seems to me that the Embracer is more likely to be a control oriented person, who must convince you they are right and change your mind, They show high levels of intolerance to anyone who disagrees with them and has a high level of faith in government and popular Science, and is all for using climate change to alter mars. Or in short Convinced man is in control of the planet(s)

And No They will never allow me to publish this reasrch 🙂

I would be fascinated to hear your views, and whether you are an embracer, or a skeptic, its not your view, But your why I would like to hear.

Why do you hold your view?
So what does it all mean, and what do you think are the reasons we share collective views as groups?

The_Q 7 Jan 19
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

You seem to be conflating two different things; there is climate change, and manmade climate change, to deny climate change would be like denying that the earth orbits the sun. The climate has been changing for millennia, so what you mean and should say is “manmade climate change “. Here are just a few facts that may be the cause of people’s confusion over how much is manmade.

  1. The Romans grew vineyards and made wine in Yorkshire (northern Britain) 2000 years ago.
  2. The Vikings grew corn and maize in Greenland 1100 Years ago, Greenland is now covered in ice.
  3. The Themes River (London) used to freeze over regularly in the 17th and 18th centuries.
  4. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 and spilled more greenhouse gasses in one year than humans have created since they first walked the earth. The temperature of the planet dropped for a few months, and by less than 1 degree Centigrade.
    I could go on but would risk being boring. There is nothing wrong with wanting cleaner air but don’t feed the public with false information in an effort to create a guilt that can be used to tax them. The biggest problem this planet faces is plastics. While people are being fed the climate emergency bullshit they are ignoring the big problem we have with plastics.
    And here’s why: every piece of plastic produced every piece of micro plastic in our sea and our food chain has paid a tax. There was a tax on the chemicals that it was made from, a tax on the company that made it, a tax on the energy used to make it, a sales tax on the finished product and so on. So what government would want to stop plastic production? But if you could create a fear and guilt based on, let’s say, CO2 for instance you could create a vast amount of taxes and the great thing is, CO 2 will always be here so you can tax it forever. Even if you could flick a switch and make the world carbon neutral tomorrow it would have very little if any effect on the climate and you would have to create another tax on, take your pick, let’s say nitrous oxide.
0

Your argument would likely be recognized as a little more scientific if it wasn't so thoroughly framed as 'us v. them.'

But straight to your point about the obvious stereotype, yes. Those of "us" on the right who are interested in preserving individual liberty first, because that is the basis for the socioeconomic system that has made the world a better place to date, will naturally tend to oppose solutions to problems that increase the scope and power of government at the expense of the rights of the individual.

I would point to the fact that Climate Change's biggest proponents are politicians, not scientists, and that the scientists seem to be operating at the behest of the politicians who control their budgets.

As to the characteristics of the average Climate Change denier, if your argument in favor of a belief in Climate Change is simply, 'your an idiot of you don't,' then yes you can expect to see a lot of of middle fingers, metaphorically speaking, without a lot of scientific retort to substantiate their position.

Thanks, and sorry if I made this look to much like research, as it was an observation by someone involved in magnetic pole movement research, so I possibly have some of my "thought speak" spilling in.

It was thinking out loud about the stereotypes that are used, and how my experience with technical people has made me evaluate the stereotypes, on both sides of the .... What's the right word, debate seems inappropriate ... Evidence evaluation?

But you are right, and many scientists are uncomfortable, with the reporting of the science.

Maybe [slug.com] wiould be an interesting discussion you might like to join (that is looking like blatant self promotion too) - Its interesting if nothing else.

Thanks for contributing

0

From the "What-the-heck" dept.

There is a familiar thread running through all of this.

[heartland.org]

Thanks for Sharing - I especially liked the "almosts religious quality" reference.

Many are seeing it, But there are still many who do nt.

@The_Q

People either find religion or religion finds them. It's like eating. Some people eat what's good for them, but the stats show an unhealthy predisposition to junk. But, we still have to eat.

@Terence57 I think if we are Honest - We will always find that we a have a religious belief in something

Everyone needs to believe in something, So as I eat some Pizza, ... I believe I'll have another beer.

@The_Q
[torontosun.com]

There are literally hundreds of examples of this.

0

At one time, rightly or wrongly, many of us assumed that Science was an endeavor attracting some of the brightest and most committed to the furtherance of knowledge, if not the furtherance of people.

It has become painfully obvious over decades that the 'Science Industry' has been compromised by its unholy alliances with Funders, political and otherwise.

That leaves the Skeptic in pretty secure territory. And, to be fair, it leaves Funders reasonably well looked after, a la,
"What do you think I'm PAYING YOU FOR..."

Nice erudite group, here, by the way. T

0

Great reasoning. Thanks.

2

Definatly a skeptic and right wing leaning and a trades person lol spot on and good points. Of the people I know who are believers, they are all of the things you have observed and reported on. The thought of us not being in control somehow disturbs them and their total trust in the government which has never lied to the masses ever! Ha if history can teach us anything its. We don't ever really know till decades later and by then there is no "I told you so" because there is a new tactic for us to be distracted with and nonsonsicle things bombarded at us to keep us numb to the real problems. None of which I would like to get into here. The science has become a religion and the word science gets thrown around too much now . To go against the popular science is blasphemy. End rant

4

50 years of false catastrophic predictions on climate are illustrative. One example Acid rain supported by scientists, politicians, and media. It was going to destroy all earth’s forests. Reality the Nitrogen in the acid rain was fertiliser for vegetation much like today carbon aka CO2 is going to destroy the planet, reality the 40% increase in CO2 has increased vegetation markedly to an area equivalent of an area twice the size of the USA a wonderful thing for food production and oxygen production and greening of the planet generally. .

Thanks for this, It's a good illustration of the once bitten twice shy. as well as showing the desire to check facts, So I really appreciate you taking the time to reply.

3

The Earth may be experiencing a long term warming trend as it did before the invention of the wheel. Global warming has stimulated more technology than technology has influenced global warming. Skepticism begins with the inter changing of the terms "global warming" and "climate change." Climate change proponents always mean glo al warming, but won't use global warming when global temperatures have experienced a 15 year pause, and hurricane activity has appeared to slow. I know there has been anecdotal evidence that ice thickness in arctic regions has waned a bit. Presently, we are experiencing a warmer than usual winter. However, I fail to see evidence of the climate of any global region appearing to change. The world view that present trends of any sort are infinite is foolish. Many believe the political globalist trend was inevitable and would be supported by the influence of the internet, alas, the opposite has proven to be true, for now. In 30 years the pendulum will swing back in the globalist favor. Environmentalism and Climate Change are not the same thing. Ecology is important to people of all political beliefs. The Nihilist intentions of climate change politics has exposed the person behind the curtain, and the wizards of smart are no longer trusted.

Actually the Thinning ice is far more interesting than you might yet even realise, But not in this discussion. (sorry I do a lot of work on the planets electromagnetic field anomalies for navigation and solar atmospheric predictions, so the poles are very important to my work, and we have a lot of data on the ice shelves. But I digress. I love the wizards and Nihilist references, Smoke and mirrors, which reminds of some earlier work on Popular Science as a religion. But again, Thanks for the Response I Appreciate it.

2

i have kinda fallen in the electric universe model. voyagers cross into interstellar space and increased radiance.
solar magnetic cycles and global magnetic polarity shifts.
camps that unify a primary magnetic forces encompassing gravity and electromagnetic forces.

much alarm is given, but how much alarm arizes from people relocating to new environments, college students and transplants, unfamiliar with the local weather cycles and natural unpradictability.

above and below tropical maridians have 4 seasons supposedly though the closer you are to a tropic the weather begins a much milder shift in seasons.

earnest attention on a daily basis of the solar cycles and magnetosphere, global patterns for years is mandatory.....

there is something going on with the climate...there are too many physical nuclear forces misunderstood in action to make blanket statements.

weather(climate) changes throughout the day. ask my thermometer.

Electric Universe is interesting, But I have to admit I cannot yet figure out how to separate Magnetism and Electricity. I hope you have looked into the studies on switching in the solar corona data from the parker space probel, which shows just how complex the whole magnetic - electric - plamsa - heat thing really is, we are just scratching the surface, and have a lot to learn about the sun and the electromagnetic fields.

The more I learn, the more I find out that I don't know Thanks for taking the time to reply

Yes I too have interest in the EU and all of its conclusions which seem to prove that the wool has been pulled over our eyes but not on purpose. But now that the wool is known to exist, we still as a people want those in charge to be right. Even though they are not. Hard to tell 200 yer old science that it could be all wrong

@The_Q i am pretty ignorant on the coronal switching. i have just been watching the daily solar system reports by "suspiciousobserver" on youtube now for a few years now and he gets into some descriptions but i mostly watch for the global weather maps and halfhandedly follow the earthquake predictions

@CuriousFury Maybe I'l make a science post on its impact one day

@The_Q Well, you don't sperate Electricity from Magnetism. The Electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces along with Gravity, the Strong and the Weak Nuclear forces. Electricity generates a magnetic field... A moving or fluctuating magnetic field produces electricity. Two aspects of the same force.

3

On Haidt's moral foundation test I'm a liberal. On the big 5 personality test I score high in openness and disagreeableness. I'm fairly old but maintain an interest in reading technical papers and I'm increasingly disinterested in fiction and art. I worked as a civil engineer and was involved in introducing the DDI to the U.S. as well as roundabouts. My parents were Democrats and I have been a registered Democrat most of my life but now mostly vote Republican. I'm functionally an atheist but feel no animosity towards religion. I'm an empiricist and Determinist but a compatibalist. I hope that is enough information for your survey.

I take a rather peculiar stand on Scott Adams theory of ego. His idea that quantum physics somehow supports the analogy of reality being a simulation I reject on the basis that it is at odds with Determinism. My experience with hallucinogens did not teach me anything about ego. It simply reinforced my belief the brain is easily confused by disruption of sensor processing. Even the most extreme hallucinations I experienced as cartoons to be enjoyed not acted upon. I totally reject the idea that we are unable to be objective. By objective I mean able to make predictions based on sensory data. It is a question of precision and accuracy enhanced by thinking tools such as mathematics and instrumentation that enhance the senses. Obviously IQ and emotional stability plus imagination plays a part as well. I'm telling you this to lay the foundation for my argument.

The question of climate change is all about precision and accuracy. The question of Anthropogenic co2 causing warming is beyond dispute. So is the probability that exposure to radiation increases cancer rates. It's all about how much. My estimation is that the amount of warming will be under two degrees over the next century. Most people hear 1 degree and think that is nothing but it represents a 6 percent increase. Anthropogenic warming represents a significant change.

Unfortunately it makes a great deal of difference in how you respond depending on every half degree or so. The models are no where accurate enough to make responsible public policy decisions. Worse yet there is clear evidence that they have been treaked to show exaggerated warming. The climate scientists have become politicians and have adopted the sins of politicians. It's not just the bias that is dangerous but the kind of tunnel vision that group think introduced that is dangerous.

My position has remained stable for 30years. Short term climate variability is more dangerous than a stable increase in temperatures. The historical evidence is clear that climate instability leads to more political instability than long term trends. We can argue over the record about warm periods and mini ice ages but there can be no argument that sudden changes can and have happened and will happen. Our highest priority must be food security. A "year without a summer" will happen again and there are no food reserves.

It is a question of cost benefits. I know however from my engineering experience that people cannot or will not accept a calculus that involves lives. They will always demand maximum security. Unfortunately security is often not a rational process. There is a lot of emotional factors that go into security evaluations. More often than not it's not the sexual predator but an accident that threatens your child. The same is true of climate change. It's may be the warming that is a threat but as a matter of probability it's what the activists have not thought of that will get us.

This will keep my mind busy for weeks, Thanks for taking the time for such a thoughtful, and really interesting explanation, I like how you have your own vies, yet one fact is beyond review, while other are open to dispute. A very interesting perspective with a lot of considered thought to it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail.

0

Embrace skepticism!

Why? - What are you selling 🙂

Nah Just kidding - But thanks for the comment and joining the dialogue

@The_Q indeed,! Blessings Q, thanks for putting your thought's out there and asking for input. I have been reading 1 Corinthians 13:4 lately and replacing the word Love with my name and Asking God to help me be a more loving person. I thought it would lead me to like be that all happy nice person who smiles all the time,, instead, it led me to reject the lie i keep living in and confront the reason i accept the lie i keep living in (apparently, everyone else in the world is better off without me living a lie and love is truth) ,, , . Thankful beyond measure for the results it is having in my life ,, indeed.

3

I used to buy into the whole CO2 causing anthropogenic climate change. In fact, in university I wrote a paper about how warmer oceans absorb less gas - including CO2 - and came to the erroneous conclusion that, given that co2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, and given that we're pumping tons of co2 in the atmosphere, that the oceans will warm because of rising 'ambient' temperatures, and warmer water will absorb less co2 . Therefore, global warming would escalate dramatically. Stupid, eh? Well, it was an undergrad assignment. Yes, I am ashamed, but it was almost 30 years ago.

Fast forward to the present, we see this Greta Thunberg coming to immense fame, and even addressing the UN! She's suddenly everywhere. You can't escape all that is Greta and her message. Her face is all over all social media and MSM. How is it even possible that a teenager who skipped school to protest climate change is invited to address the UN. This just doesn't happen in the real world. I smelled a rat! That is when I started digging beneath the surface.

Having done quite a lot of research, albeit I may have succumbed to confirmational bias here and there, yet I am firmly in the 'climate skeptic' camp. I see no hard evidence that the CO2 humans release can cause significant warming of the globe. I do see a lot of evidence that science is being hijacked, of statistics being manipulated, of data being suppressed and/or molded, of researchers being 'cancelled', and a few elite (eg Soros, Gore, NGO's) have positioned themselves to cash in big time on climate change and 'green' technologies and investments.

p.s. I was mainly quite left-winged until recently.

So, if I may, would you say your views changed with your politics,m or your politics changed, as you saw the issues you mentioned, and changed your views.

I know Chicken and Egg, but I am really interested in this, As I am coming to the opinion that it may be our politics changing as were examine the world. But I could be wrong. It won't be the first time

Both sides are on the take, Agenda 21 is the goal, Vote Libertarian to effect change in the system

@The_Q My politics changed after observing changes in society, and learning about the UN agenda 21/2030. Canada has signed on with that.

@808scotty While Agenda 21 affects me too, Sadly No libertarians down here. Just have to do the best we can with what we got ... It ain't much, but every little bit of rebellion helps, And I think a little rebellion every now and then is good for society .. Maybe that's my french bloodline speaking 🙂

@The_Q Hawaii they are few and far between as well, but politics is changing as we speak, the crows are coming home to roost, entire washington establishment is being exposed 1 by 1

Right on

6

This is a very well thought out and written piece on the two sides of climate change. But, the underlying desire of the George Soros elites is to destroy the preeminently white people cultures and countries. This they do by enacting a climate change tax/hoax as a method of wealth transfer from successful civilizations to those which Mr. Trump accurately portrayed as "shit-hole" countries. What inventions, what science, what humanity innovations have been realised by Islamist countries? Are non-white countries like Saudi Arabia, China, India, Africa expected to pay a carbon tax? Leaders of vision need to put an end to the hoax, don't you think?

A lot in this, so I'll have to pick and choose. As for the carbon tax, This is very interesting, and I think an argument not well carried by western media. If I recall, one of Trump's big reasons for pulling out of the paris accord, was the insistence that America could not trade carbon credits gains off-shore. Something like an american business in India reduces pollution by 30%, that reduction gets recorded as an american contribution. This was thinking Globally acting Globally, but this was opposed by Europe, If I recall. Had they allowed this America would have been willing to work on reductions that would be financially viable, and in the interests of the world. but NO. So why should such improvements be valueless ? So an interesting point on the wealth tax. If the goal was emission reduction, does it matter where the reduction occurs? Suspicion of the intentions maybe?

As for islamists as a whole, I tend to disagree a little here, The current state of the world, yes the science is lacking, and all but gone, replaced by religious ignorance, but if we go back in history they had a great contribution to science and invention, especially in light and garments, and there was a lot of trade with the middle east both in commodities and knowledge. But Europe had its dark ages too, when superstition ruled and invention was forgotten (it was called the mini ice age) as it warmed, and the ice retreated, we moved to prosperity and the renaissance. So perhaps a little kindness for the group. I feel for the oppressed individuals, But not the religious state that holds them down.

Can you imagine if the minds that made the silk and then the scimitar that could cut silk in the air, was set free to create. Imagine the engineering marvels that the makers of the Gardens of Babylon might create. What wonders can a free mind bring into existence. And don't worry if you don't understand them, I can't understand the mind (Or the dancing) of Elon Musk, But Tesla and Spacex can certainly deliver the goods.

But thank you for taking the time to reply, It shows how the connection process works, and what matters in a discussion, may not be what we started talking about. But thats what makes the human mind so incredible, is the ability to see how all these this are connected.

Thanks again for the reply

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:71086
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.