As someone who works with computer network security I would offer that you are a reasonably intelligent person. But also your schooling and environment has suggested that the mental approach is all that is important. So cute babies have no place in the world and you have a conflict between the gut reaction that is considered unimportant and the mental. It is not your fault.
I consider our education system as having a strong inhuman bias for more than 50 years. What started out as a push for relevancy in the '70's became a whole scale march away from the humanities so that higher education more often now means increasingly narrow training rather than a broad understanding of life, civilization and human nature. You position is then probably not an isolated one.
It is possible to go to a doctor and get pain killers. The modern social equivalent are lots of creature comforts and material possessions. These can make us feel better and this is one way to go. But if you are not satisfied with the blue pill then you could generally try to fill in something of what you are missing in the humanities. You could also try to turn your general feeling about climate change into a more exacting study. I would suggest that order because while you certainly understand logic, rhetoric, history, are important cultural studies that help to give us some wisdom and make it less likely for us to be manipulated and lied to. This is not a conspiracy theory it is simply a vulnerability and history.
How you ultimately resolve your conflict is your choice. I have only suggested a path to pursue greater knowledge and wisdom. It seems as if you have a long road ahead but have taken the first step. Very best to you.
Global warming is far from a science, it's a religious dogma. I too am an environmentalist and in a scientific field but don't accept that a 0.02% increase in co2 has any effect on the environment. No one knows if it will be warmer or colder in the future and can show their work. It's not a science. But if you want to reduce co2, I'm right there with you. We should build more nuclear power, export more nuclear power using thorium as a source of power instead of uranium. That would reduce co2 by 50%. We could do work researching using nuclear batteries in cars. Yes, they work and are safe -
But since I don't accept the dogma, I'm insulted and worse by the zealots on this board. If only I believed as they do, then I would be accepted even though they don't actually do anything to help resolve the problem.
So you're saying if you were about to board a plane and 97% of the aircraft mechanics told you the plane was going to crash..... you'd board the plane?
Look, it's WAY past time that we stop debating over whether or not climate change is man made and start doing something about the things that are happening which simply cannot be disputed. Land glaciers ARE melting, bees ARE disappearing, oceans ARE acidifying, sea levels ARE rising. These are conclusive examples of evidence of climate change.
Personally, I'm looking on the bright side.... I may have ocean front property in Dallas some day!
I was once a believer. I watched that Al Gore crap and fell for it. It felt so passionate about it. I love the environment which goes back to the fact I was a bush kid so I was out in nature all day everyday. I started doing a bachelor in applied science double major one being bioscience. I plan on doing a double masters in enviro sci and enviro engineering. Any way for my Skills and Communication subject yr1 I got to choose a journal based assignment out of a few choices and 1 was global warming so of course I chose it. The problem was you couldn't just use any journal, you had to use journals with relevant primary references and it was so hard finding a journal with primary source reference that backed global warming yet so easy to find it in backing the start of global cooling. You look at Dome C and it clearly shows a drop the global warming peak was long ago like thousands yet we are still relatively near the top because GC takes 100,000yrs so that is why things are still warm and ice is melting. CO2 actually follows temperature not the other way around. The temp is not a clean slide up or down. It has many ups and downs within ups and downs within ups and down while overall going down. Reading journals with valid primary sources turned me from GWist to GCist and I'm sticking with it. One day people will catch on till then to the average person I may seem loopy but in the science field I'm one side of a divide.
There are at least a couple of ways of interpreting your question, and I'm not sure which one you intended.
If you are asking why you have chosen to be a denier, I have absolutely no idea.
If you are asking why people call you a denier, that's a little more clear. Here are some things I've seen:
You ask the same questions (or slight variations) repeatedly, but ignore the answers that people give you.
A large fraction of your questions are veiled or not-so-veiled insults of climate scientists, and many directly cast aspersions on their integrity. That is not skepticism about the science.
I never see you take issue with obvious lies by other deniers.
EDIT: Well if that's the question you want answered, I don't know. You're certainly quite different than Maxx, Sagebrush, Zippi62 and others (thank goodness). You seem like one of the more intelligent people in here, so that doesn't really seem like a factor. A few years ago, there was someone a little similar in here, who changed his name repeatedly but used "Randall" and "Didier Drogba" the most. But even he seemed very financially conservative, and I don't really get that from you. We don't really know much about your background that would provide insight. As I recall you were in the navy(?) and have a MSEE or MS Computer Engineering or something like that, but neither of those things would necessarily lead you on the path to denial.
In my own case, I'm sure I get characterized as a "tree hugger" when in reality I'm far from an ardent environmentalist. I think people need to take a balanced approach between exploiting our environment and protecting it.
EDIT for Dr Jello: It's not because you "...don't accept the dogma..." that you receive so much flak from people like me, it is because you are a habitual liar. Claiming that there is a "0.02% increase in co2" is an example of sophistry, if not a blatant lie. The amount (moles, liters, etc.) of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 40%, not 0.02% as you claim.
This may be part of the reason. It certainly struck a chord with me. It is from one of three articles in a series on a well-known sceptical website. It argues that there are some things people just "won't buy".
"it is almost certainly based upon how the Consensus present their message. More generally, excess certainty and demeaning of the opposition and certain other characteristics embedded in the narrative, are what trigger public resistance. These features are independent of the actual topic, and whatever that topic, the public appear to ‘know’ (this will be subconscious in many cases) that these features mean there are fundamental problems hidden beneath the narrative."
The articles are a response to the ideas promulgated by Lewandowsky et al. They contain some interesting nuggetts. I detected a slight bias in places, though, and I generally get fed up with reading them about halfway through. When you get to my age the old attention span is not what it was.
Clearly, it is because you aren't a KoolAid drinker. As provocative as that statement is, it is true IMO. You express your skepticism of their theories that our CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. That threatens their political agenda so you have to be attacked and discredited. Clearly most who post here are those who Lenin would call useful idiots and they are probably mostly well meaning.
Peggy always pretends to be a moderate and reasoned yet he always demonstrates he is something else. Peggy suggests you criticize "scientists" like you are anti-science but I noticed actual examples were missing. It is easier to smear somebody with wild accusations when actual examples can't be found. Anyone that is skeptical of an alarmist's belief system is a liar, racist, or whatever insult they find convenient.
It is science hijacked by politics which certainly harms science.
Note: If you denied that we had a H.o.m.o. heidelbergensis in our ancestry. Let's say you theorized that H. heidelbergensis was an offshoot and in fact our ancestry came from an earlier line. I doubt that any paleontologist would get all self righteous and call you a denier just because you were skeptical of their theories. In fact, those who did would be looked at as if they were insane yet alarmists think it the most natural stance they could hold.
Some shrewd important and once believed, "Control the amount of food furnish and also influence those. inches In my opinion the fashionable identical might be, "Control the energy furnish, and also influence those. inches Should the federal government found the vitality towards state kinds of energizes we tend to usage, they'll influence a lot of our lifetime.
You will find a second approach to this very to boot. For the reason that conservatives, we tend to are convinced her preferred should people complimentary can whatever encounter. Government's profession is almost always to provide an habitat where particular prospers. Liberals reckon that the us government will be method. Basically immense united states government intrustion are able to protect you and me because of AGW.
Personally, I'm inclined to call you a skeptic (or, at worse, a "skeptic") rather than a denialist. You don't seem to be one of the ones who's denying that global warming exists, or that humans have a role in it. You just think it's not important enough to act on. I still think that's a foolish position, but it's not one that utterly scoffs at science.
A wise king once said, "Control the food supply and you control the people." I think the modern equivalent is, "Control the energy supply, and you control the people." If the federal government had the power to dictate what kind of fuels we use, they could control our lives.
There is another angle to this as well. As conservatives, we believe its best if people are free do what they want. Government's job is to provide an environment in which the individual prospers. Liberals believe that the government is the solution. Only massive government intrustion can save us from AGW.
I've decided to do some self introspection and I'd like your help. On the climate issue, I simply do not believe that reducing CO2 emissions is going to have any appreciable effect on global temperatures or weather. I have a variety of reasons and don't need to go into them to address this question.
On other issues, I am generally not conspiracy minded. The moon landings happened and we are not spraying chemicals out of jet engines. Evolution and Big Bang are good theories and I don't have a conflict with them since I am not religious.
Even though I work for the government, it is in computer network security so it's a benign subject as far as politics or conspiracies.
There are two possible areas however that might be related. I have some suspicions about the amount of money and power that is acting behind the scenes. To me, governments are not really the power but are puppets for some rich elite. The financial world is probably the most powerful of all. And the UN is probably the biggest puppet of them all and only growing larger and stronger.
For the environment, I am a conservationist. Animal rights people like PETA and environmental groups like WWF or Greenpeace don't impress me in the least. Actually, they worry me. And I'm certainly not a fan of large corporations, especially when they abuse either the environment or their workers.
I could go on and on but perhaps I'll stop here allow people to come up with their own theories or ask me more questions.
Peggy: Re your statement, "I never see you take issue with obvious lies by other deniers." That is assuming that there are obvious lies. Apparently you don't know the definition of what a lie is. You said that Maxx lied about Masters or something like that. I couldn't find any explanation like that. Show everyone where where exactly IS this clarification. Until you do you will be considered a liar.
Furthermore, I never see you take issues with your cronies when they obviously lie. But you do have a good excuse, there are just too many of them. Most of the time when I take issues with your cronies, I get deleted. Ha! Ha! Go back and buffalo your kindergarten class. You are with pros here. We all can see right through you.
In direct answer to the question: It is because science backs up the idea that AGW and ACC are bogus subjects. Or maybe you can see that it is politics rather than science. As a true scientist am appalled at the sloppiness of the thinking to get us to proving AGW or ACC and I am sure you are too. When someone of the 'saviors of the earth' class admit it is politics rather than science.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
I can believe him or her. Only an extremely stupid person would ignore a statement like that. Also, the true scientists on this site want the truth not OVER-REPRESENTATION.
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Who in the true science world wants to have his ears tickled with OVER-REPRESENTATIONS. What kind of person would you be if you said, "I know he lies but I love his agenda." You'd be a crazy person. That's who.
As a scientist I believe in accurate data, and it seems you do too. A hypothesis is fine in exploring a subject but you never force people to act on hypothesis until you are reasonably sure.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
In other words, "We don't care that the earth is cooling. That is not part of our agenda." Real great thinking there.
And most of all, I am quoting from a man much smarter than I am.
Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.” And that sums up in very few words what I have been saying all along.
Your question mirrors my position, I too am not normally a controversy believing person, but I too believe there is something, some group behind the UN and other beaurocracies that is striving for Totalitarianism and world government, this is a situation that worries me far more than global warming or climate change ever does.
Thankfully nature is undoing all their propaganda and brainwashing efforts and hopefully in time everyone will realise what a farce this global warming is.
You just can't read in between the lines
I'm with you
You just can't read in between the lines
It is to associate you with 'holocaust denier'. Michael Mann in his book even mentions how hurt a son of Holocaust survivors was by the language used by skeptics, but then he goes out and says denier left and right. He knows exactly what he is doing.
You just can't read in between the lines
Climate change research has been going on for decades and the studies have continuously returned the same results - it's real, we're doing it, and if we don't stop ******* around " wanting to study it more before acting" it'll be too late - in fact it probably already is too late - congratulations to Exxon-Mobil and dupes like yourself - you killed our grandchildren.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/20...
ME TO when USA is the only country studying climate change and the rest of he world is not nothing is going to change. I think it is just SMOKE & MIRRORS to cover up a war that is going on to long and the slow economy recovery as long as you talk about climate change you are not talking about important issues that the government needs to address.
Look at it this way:
If the climate change deniers are wrong and we do nothing, millions may die and the world is in deep trouble.
If those who feel that it is real and take steps to reduce climate change and it turns out they are wrong, the world will continue as normal.
Logic says you need to take the one that results in the least harm if they are wrong.
I'm with you
You just can't read in between the lines
You're not a sceptic. You're a cynic.
You just can't read in between the lines
Are you really a 'climate denier' or are you a man-made Global Warming skeptic? I don't think anyone denies that the climate changes, skeptics only deny that human activity is causing it.
-----------------------
Why am I a climate denier?
You can't be a climate denier? The climate exists, you can't deny that. What you can be is a climate change denier or a AGW denier.
Because you are smart enough to realize that if you took every *human body* on Earth
and stood them side-by-side and front to back, and then lined-up every car & truck in the US
hood-to-trunk and door handle to door handle, you would not fill Texas.
You are not necessarily a denier .... because you seem to be far smarter than that.
You're not a sceptic. You're a cynic.
I'm with you
You're not a sceptic. You're a cynic.
