Politics, cash, fame: What motivates climate change deniers

And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself “how did I get here”?

Things fall apart. It's scientifc.

:-)

Politics, cash, fame: What motivates climate change deniers

LOL

Probably the same folks that brought you Hillary Clinton, the Steel dossier and the phony Russia whatever.

And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself “how did I get here”?

Invalid CSRF

I have a name, but I can't post it here because I promised him our e-mail correspondence was in confidence. He was an acquaintance of my father's.

That is called "hearsay" and only evidence that you have no actual argument or appeal to that supposed authority, if someone came and said that not one but 3 of their first class university academic acquaintances said that people that claim to "be able to prove climate change is false but don't do it because of fear of being rejected by the scientific community" are just deeply unprofessional and ignorant about the actual evidence that supports the current scientific consensus. Since that "someone" have 3 times the amount of supposed professors as you, would you accept this as an argument that your own source is wrong and unprofessional?

When you try to make an appeal to authority without proving that authority you are accepting your appeal is completely worthless, and has no relevance in a discussion.

Jimizo, I have a name, but I can't post it here because I promised him our e-mail correspondence was in confidence. He was an acquaintance of my father's.

Stephan Lewandowsky has come in for criticism in the past. One example at the link below:

Your source is terribly weak and the criticism demonstrated as invalid in the comments section, it is not only presenting the information in a misleading way (by not normalizing the data according to the very different populations) but also manipulates the data to force a conclusion (by for example considering climate change believers even those that refuse to accept any kind of human activity dependency of the problem). The "criticism" ends up being just an example of how to obviously try to manipulate data to force a conclusion by invalid means. Nothing makes it more obvious than the complete lack of statistical analysis of the "criticism",

I do think some people are correctly described as deniers - those who would never change their opinion whatever data was presented to them.

I think many people are correctly described as deniers. My point wasn't that there are no deniers, my point was that that there aren't really "believers" in science, there are people that trust the scientific method, and those who trust those who follow the scientific method. That's not belief as in faith like a religion, that's an acceptance that data and fact has led to a given accepted science, and that further data and understanding could change that accepted science in the future.

I don't think there are "believers" in science. There is trust in the scientific method, and trust for those who follow it.

But when science is associated with social policy and when the science is not certain, is there not sometimes an overlap? If I say I've created a new material that is 100 times stronger than steel, I can soon be proved right or wrong. But in fields such as climate and physical health, the uncertainty is much bigger. I recall one argument in the UK when one health charity was promoting the idea that kids should get exposed to sunlight while another health charity was saying that would increase the risk of skin cancer. Both said their ideas were based on science.

I do think some people are correctly described as deniers - those who would never change their opinion whatever data was presented to them. But I've also seen some described as deniers who are anything but. One example is of Michael Mann (of hockey stick graph fame) accusing Judith Curry (another climate scientist) of being a denier.

I once asked a Cambridge University professor in the field for his opinion, and he said he was 99% convinced of the same thing, but he couldn't say so because it would mean complete ostracisation by his colleagues

Interesting theory, so you think it's a conspiracy?

I'd say that both "deniers" and "believers" have no place in science.

I don't think there are "believers" in science. There is trust in the scientific method, and trust for those who follow it.

I'd say that both "deniers" and "believers" have no place in science. Are they not basically religious terms that refer to people who won't change their minds, whatever evidence is presented?

Politically, I'd place myself somewhere on the left. But I've had doubts about some of the claims and ideas of some climate scientists. That doesn't mean I think it's not a problem - it's potentially a huge problem. But I do worry that some get involved in climate science not so much to find out what's happening but to promote a cause.

I once asked a Cambridge University professor in the field for his opinion, and he said he was 99% convinced of the same thing, but he couldn't say so because it would mean complete ostracisation by his colleagues

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this line of argument.

No name as usual.

Next.

So then why do many leftists call men women knowing that they can't have babies? 

Please show verifiable examples of this. Waving the bs flag until you do.

Will they put charging stations throughout the desert? 

There are charging stations up and down US 395 if that answers your question.

I just want to mention that the idea of buying and selling pollution credits or carbon credits came from two Reagan administration lawyers, John B. Henry and C. Boyden Gray. These were Republicans and lawyers, but also outdoorsy who liked to hike and camp in the Appalachians. They could see the effects of strip mining and other polluting activities, but being conservative in nature sought a way to put a market price on the cost of polluting. That idea became pollution credits. Environmentalists and liberals immediately labeled the idea "pay to pollute" and condemned it. Economists however saw merit in the idea, this in a time when there were arcane policy debates about the value of "Best Possible Technology" vs "Best Practicable Technology". Pollution is very much a cost of production, one born by the sufferers of the pollution and not incorporated into the cost of production so it is not reflected in the price of the polluting good or service. Their idea was to put a price on pollution so the price of the good or service reflected the price of pollution and manufacturers would be motivated to reduce pollution. It took over three decades for economists to get environmentalists and liberals to warm up to the idea, and as soon as they did the far right started calling pollution credits a "leftist plot" or worse, effectively denouncing their own idea.

*trifecta

I’ve noticed a triumvirate of idiocy:

Stolen elections

Scamdemic

Climate change as a hoax

Whoever is playing these people is utterly immoral. Preying on the vulnerable is so low.

Notice how all deniers are of one particular political affiliation, and almost always in one country?

See the post immediately previous to this for a case-in-point example of this quote.

It's politics. 'Leftists' have a basic trust in science and facts.

So then why do many leftists call men women knowing that they can't have babies? Seems like politics to me.

'Rightists' don't, because the people they dislike that do. 

No, it's the leftists that push some on the right into saying my way or thought is right, "conform or be ridiculed, well, then ridicule me."

Truth dodgers think that 'unrenewable' energy will last for ever and that the combined actions of 7 billion consumers can't affect a whole planet. It's beyond their comprehension that it could. 

Will they put charging stations throughout the desert? What happens when an EV gets flooded, will the prices ever come down and how will you make renewables, you need crude oil to do that.

Stephan Lewandowsky has come in for criticism in the past. One example at the link below:

https://climateaudit.org/2012/09/13/lewandowskys-fake-results/

How is it “leftist” to work to mitigate the effects of climate change?

It's not. It's rightist to be a climate change denier. Notice how all deniers are of one particular political affiliation, and almost always in one country?

The rest of the world want to mitigate the effects of climate change, on both the left and the right. This is not a political issue in countries other than that one. And you all know which one I'm talking about.

It's politics. 'Leftists' have a basic trust in science and facts. 'Rightists' don't, because the people they dislike that do.

Truth dodgers think that 'unrenewable' energy will last for ever and that the combined actions of 7 billion consumers can't affect a whole planet. It's beyond their comprehension that it could.

All the while, billionaires will make plenty more money through trading phoney carbon credits

This chap is a prime example. He'll use other people's excesses to avoid taking personal responsibility for his own actions. Unfortunately the world is full of similarly selfish people and so we can't really move forward. It's easier to blame someone else and not have to do anything.

Whatever the motivation it is clear the deniers have won. So congratulations to them. They largely got what they wanted. They have managed to hold things up and deceive for long enough that it has now become about adapting or putting up with the effects. That has increasingly become the narrative. Sadly, it probably won't be the deniers who are hit hard first.

How is it “leftist” to work to mitigate the effects of climate change?

Seems that some folk regard any attempt to do anything that isn’t directly related to the screwing of yet more money out of the planet and the people who inhabit it is somehow morally questionable.

What an execrable article! Imputing all the worst possible motives to people who disagree with you, and in the most self-satisfied, smug and pompous way, is a truly dreadful way to change people's minds. I spent years reading about this issue and came to the conclusion that the effects of CO2 -- and, in particular, the effects of emissions by humans -- on climate change have been vastly exaggerated. I once asked a Cambridge University professor in the field for his opinion, and he said he was 99% convinced of the same thing, but he couldn't say so because it would mean complete ostracisation by his colleagues.

Could just as well read “Politics, cash, fame: what motivates climate change crisis promoters?”

The idea that there is more money in environmentalism, climate research, or green energy than there is in fossil fuels, by far the most lucrative business in the history of mankind, is truly laughable.

It's almost like a test of intelligence or wishful thinking.

This is nothing compared to the golden rivers of subsidies that governments hand out to leftists for their renewable energy scams, at taxpayers' expense of course. The same scams that are now bearing fruit in the form of energy shortages that will only get worse as the propaganda ramps up in response to the failures of these schemes. All the while, billionaires will make plenty more money through trading phoney carbon credits while flying round the world in private jets lecturing to the plebs about the evils of consumption.

Interesting theory you have on this conspiracy. Very titillating.

This is nothing compared to the golden rivers of subsidies that governments hand out to leftists for their renewable energy scams, at taxpayers' expense of course. The same scams that are now bearing fruit in the form of energy shortages that will only get worse as the propaganda ramps up in response to the failures of these schemes. All the while, billionaires will make plenty more money through trading phoney carbon credits while flying round the world in private jets lecturing to the plebs about the evils of consumption.