Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

[Mr Rayon]

Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

 

I have heard that it is the third most populated country in the world but are there any psychological reasons for why this is so.

 

What are the psychological reasons?

[Essay]

Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

 

I have heard that it is the third most populated country in the world but are there any psychological reasons for why this is so.

 

What are the psychological reasons?

 

Grief is an understandable response when confronting the continual reminders to many of the long-term and long-range consequences arising via the extension and maintenance of "Western" empire.

 

Realizing ones responsibility or complicity (however unintentional) in an untenable situation, of global proportions, might lead one to chuck their old worldview and adopt a new worldview. But losing ones old worldview (such as varieties of "American Exceptionalism") would understandably entail some grief.

 

Denial is the first stage of that grief.

===

 

...and denial works, until another reminder comes along. Then anger develops... and then bargaining (maybe curly lightbulbs will make everything okay, or maybe I can spread enough pertinent knowledge to help fix things in time), and then depression and "working through" or adjusting to the new reality. Finally "acceptance," or a recognition of sufficient adjustment to the new reality, completes the process.

 

I fight the depression by promoting the "pertinent knowledge" needed for adjustment, as well as simply working on developing new adjustments ...such as ReInventing Fire, Pyrolysis, Biochar, Etc.

 

http://www.biochar-international.org/

&

http://www.rmi.org/ReinventingFire

&

http://www.sciencefo...120#entry707120

 

~

Edited October 11, 2012 by Essay

[overtone]

It may be difficult for outsiders to realize how little factual information, and how little comprehension of what there is, permeates the world of the low information American.

 

Meanwhile, wealthy and powerful corporate actors have a large vested interest, both in their wealth and their power, in using their media ownership and other influence to sell a significant fraction of the public on both the unreality of CO2 forcing in climate systems and the bad character of those claiming otherwise.

 

It will bite their ass, you say? The rich in the US enjoy a worldview in which they are immune from physical disasters of that kind. They simply assume they will not suffer from whatever it is, regardless, so they have no skin the game of accurate assessments.

[EquisDeXD]

It's a complex system of information. Essentially, the US is so technologically advanced that people have the ability to pick and choose their own sources of news from essentially every possible outlet, whether its TV, facebook, twitter, radio, ect. When this happens, people generally only listen to the sources they either find appealing or find common grounds with, and sometimes those sources have skewed information, but survive because so many people agree with certain parts of them.

[Phi for All]

@overtone, great points, +1

 

Corporate interests are probably the biggest contributor, imo. It's not a conspiracy, any more than evolution is a conspiracy. Modern corporate models just seem to lead towards prolonging the periods of greatest profit. Companies that have a lot invested in say, oil infrastructure, will spend a lot to keep us using oil. It may sound greedy, but the pace of modern technology requires a corporation to get as much return as possible on investments. It's not evil, but it often doesn't consider the greater good.

 

I think these models have done a lot to hurt innovation and ecology. And I think AGW denial is an result of the cumulative effects of allowing businesses to lobby for legislative favors, giving them control of the media that feeds us most of our knowledge, underfunding education, and a dependency on cheap fuel.

[ydoaPs]

Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

 

Stupid people are easily fooled by greedy people.

[arc]

Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

 

I have heard that it is the third most populated country in the world but are there any psychological reasons for why this is so.

 

What are the psychological reasons?

I believe the answer lies in the question. The third most populated. Or more accurately a very large population (third in the world) spread out over a large area. Americans have little to unit them in a unified mindset. China #1 and India #2 are quite homogeneous, due mainly I believe to long cultural histories of societal conformity pressures. In the case of China, crushing imperial nationalism followed by communism has a way of weeding out individualism and free thought.

 

These social forces neither have had the time to develop (which I believe they never will) nor population homogeneity, so to speak, to produce a social mindset. The USA is much to ethnically, religiously and politically fragmented to ever be brought together by anything as complicated as climate change. What country is brought to mind by the phrase "Free Thinkers". What people of the world celebrate independence, free speech and going against the current of public opinion.

 

America has always had a rebel attitude and is unlikely to change. Look to geographically smaller, ethnically uniform, religiously united, or in this case not, countries that will probably have a higher governmental control of media to unit with others to save the world.

[John Cuthber]

So, Europe, with twice the population of the states and an even more disjointed sense of "nation" should be less informed than the US.

 

I think it might be more to do with a wilful blindness which lets them carry on wasting resources.

[D H]

Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

 

Simple. People everywhere for the most part are not rational beings. We are instead rationalizing beings. A corollary is that irrationality, anti-intellectualism, and technophobia are rampant and know no political bounds.

 

The Kyoto protocol exempts nations such as India and China from compliance. Of course peoples in those countries ascribe to global warming. It jibes perfectly with their own self interests. Those countries, along with other developing nations, stand to benefit greatly from increased controls on the developed worlds.

 

What about western Europe? The solution to global warming is increased governmental controls over people and industry. This jibes perfectly with the authoritarian left political beliefs that dominate throughout western Europe. Even though global warming is science, it comports well with those aspects western European thought that are markedly anti-science / anti-technology. Western Europeans did get it right with regard to global warming, but that isn't because they're more enlightened than anyone else. It's because their irrational beliefs forced them along a path where they would inevitably to get it right.

 

Finally, what about the US? Global warming skeptics are almost exclusively from the radical right. This group leans more toward libertarianism as opposed than authoritarianism (except where libertarianism conflicts with other beliefs). Global warming strongly conflicts with the libertarian (minimal government), Ayn Randian ("smokestacks are beautiful"), paleo-orthodoxical religious views ("God made man to have dominion over the Earth") that predominate this group. This group is particularly susceptible to anti-intellectualism because, in their minds, they know that science oftentimes is dead wrong. Evolution is false, cosmology is false, astronomy is false. In their minds, global warming is yet another example of science getting it wrong.

Edited June 10, 2013 by D H

[iNow]

Freedom! That's why.

[John Cuthber]

 

Western Europeans did get it right with regard to global warming, but that isn't because they're more enlightened than anyone else. It's because their irrational beliefs forced them along a path where they would inevitably to get it right.

 

What irrational beliefs are you ascribing to me,and on what basis?

 

And, I remind you that, unlike the "free" citizens in Texas, I'm allowed to own a 3 necked flask.

My country's "anti-science, anti-technology" government hasn't banned them.

 

Did you ignore the possibility that the Europeans may be simply better educated in the field of science?

(There's still room for improvement, but...)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

 

 

I realise that I'd have difficulty getting a license for anything but a shotgun, however killing and destroying things isn't what floats my boat so I don't mind much.

[D H]

What irrational beliefs are you ascribing to me,and on what basis?

 

Maybe not you specifically, but you western Europeans have your share of irrationalisms. The modern day adherents of the body of anti-knowledge started by Ned Ludd (one of yours, not ours) include the anti-vaccination crowd, the anti-nuclear crowd, the anti-GMO crowd -- those are largely European ideas with predominantly European followers. Yes, they're here too, but in smaller numbers than in Europe.

 

Everyone is subject to irrational behaviors. It's in our genes. Our predecessors that jumped at waving grass survived on the few occasions where that waving grass was caused by a predator rather than by the wind. Our non-predecessors who learned to ignore waving grass because it always appeared to be caused by the wind had the unfortunate outcome of being eaten by predators. As rationalizing beings, we have taken these built-in responses of seeing man-eating monsters when it truly is just the wind many steps further. We fabricate fears where there is nothing to fear, we don't fear things that we should. We as a species are in general quite terrible at estimating and dealing with risk.

[arc]

John Cuthber, on 10 Jun 2013 - 00:22, said:

 

I think it might be more to do with a wilful blindness which lets them carry on wasting resources.

 

Americans are not ignorant, but they weigh their freedom and hard earned dollars against everything pushed at them. Americans are weary of getting the short end of the stick. Everyone has a story passed down in their family, sometimes several generations back when their ancestors were cheated out of money or property. Many of these go back to the great depression. This is deeper and more ingrained in the American psyche than most people are aware of. Its that "waving grass" DH mentioned. Something came out of the grass and left an impression that lasted generations in some cases. On top of this, Americans are worn-down by the whole build it, turn around tear it down then have to move it, way things have turned out with some of the wind generation and other green projects.

 

They have been subjected to long sometimes ridiculous debates at school and city counsel meetings over paper or plastic this or that. It's Green Fatigue, and they are so tired. They can smell the air and they think it says there's a leopard in the grass. When in doubt run like hell in the opposite direction. This is not irrational if you have already been bit. I have heard doubt about climate change from "average people" who I am very sure would not fall under the category mentioned by DH above and shown below.

 

"radical right.This group leans more toward libertarianism as opposed than authoritarianism (except where libertarianism conflicts with other beliefs). Global warming strongly conflicts with the libertarian (minimal government), Ayn Randian ("smokestacks are beautiful"), paleo-orthodoxical religious views ("God made man to have dominion over the Earth") that predominate this group. This group is particularly susceptible to anti-intellectualism because, in their minds, they know that science oftentimes is dead wrong. Evolution is false, cosmology is false, astronomy is false. In their minds, global warming is yet another example of science getting it wrong."

 

I'm not saying those people don't exist, I'm just pretty sure those are not the people I hear express doubt. These are people who appear to support more liberal politics. They just have more reservations than most Europeans. And insulting them will not win them over.

 

Maybe it would have been smarter not to wear them down with years and years of petty arguments of less important concerns of the environment. In other words, environmentalists should have saved their ammunition for the big fight. So don't call Americans ignorant or unintelligent, they are wary of what sometimes lies waiting in tall grass.

[D H]

Americans are not ignorant ...

 

In this case, they are. Or at least a significant fraction of them are. The far right's global warming skepticism is worse than mere ignorance. It is willful ignorance.

 

Everyone is subject to irrational behaviors. The right thing to do is not to proudly wear those irrational beliefs and behaviors as a badge on ones chest. Being intentionally stupid is not something to be proud about. It is something to be ashamed of. The right thing to do to be ever vigilant against those irrational beliefs and to stop them in their tracks when one sees that one is exhibiting such beliefs and behaviors.

Edited June 11, 2013 by D H

[John Cuthber]

Americans are not ignorant,

Yes they are

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

Edited June 11, 2013 by John Cuthber

[arc]

Yes they are

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

DH and John, I stand corrected.

" While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree."

 

I'm sure that 41% are the ones I have been talking to, this area I live in votes very liberal. When you add the non-religious liberal individuals that claim a climate change skepticism that 41 % may be above 50% in my area. Also, I think skeptics are more likely to initiate climate conversation. Taking some national consensus figures;

 

There are 63 million registered Democrats, 47 million registered Republicans, and 32 million registered as independents.

 

That puts dems and reps pretty even on creation. Maybe also on climate change. So, you still have an up hill climb how are you going to change this? Insulting them maybe has backfired on the pro climate crowd. Now their probably dug in and obstinate. arc

 

[overtone]

 

The modern day adherents of the body of anti-knowledge started by Ned
Ludd (one of yours, not ours) include the anti-vaccination crowd, the
anti-nuclear crowd, the anti-GMO crowd -- those are largely European
ideas with predominantly European followers. Yes, they're here too, but
in smaller numbers than in Europe.


Everyone is subject to irrational behaviors. It's in our genes.

Aside from the anti-vaccination cause, which has sources and solid followings right here in anti-flouridation America (and has had the quite rational effect of reducing the amount of mercury injected into children), you have listed causes whose adherents are associated with less ignorance and higher levels of scientific information. That would tend to support the postulated superior comprehension of scientific matters among Europeans, as a factor here.

 

And then you demonstrate that indeed irrational beliefs plague us all - including the technologically adept - by confusing anti-corporate attitudes with anti-knowledge ones, as if the thug business practices and shiny new magic technological deployments of Monsanto were the embodiment of science itself.

 

Ned Ludd, say, was not opposed to knowledge, science. . He was in the first place essentially fictional, like Kilroy, and in the second an expression of anti-corporate and anti-capitalist hostility among an abused population of landless wage workers threatened personally and directly with disaster by the adoption of certain technology on the part of local employers. They were probably wrong, at least some of the time, in their overall view of the larger situation - but irrational ? Not to the degree of Monsanto supporters, one might notice.

 

 

So, you still have an up hill climb how are you going to change
this? Insulting them maybe has backfired on the pro climate crowd. Now
their probably dug in and obstinate

Actual insult and mockery has not been tried yet - it has worked in the past, to sway the swayable and write off the others, in good causes and bad ones. The program of deference and mild jokes and attending to "both sides" and accepting the frame provided by the ignorant, universal throughout the "responsible" media, just serves up muddle that the Koch media find easy to smash around.

 

But to do it, to back them up and deliver the sting, one has to get hold of their media - they don't watch liberal media, they don't listen to liberal radio, they don't read anything much. So how you gonna? You aren't. Except one way - person by person, encounter by encounter, one day at a time. They do have to talk to other people, still.

[arc]

Aside from the anti-vaccination cause, which has sources and solid followings right here in anti-flouridation America (and has had the quite rational effect of reducing the amount of mercury injected into children), you have listed causes whose adherents are associated with less ignorance and higher levels of scientific information. That would tend to support the postulated superior comprehension of scientific matters among Europeans, as a factor here.

 

The city that I live just outside of, is a bastion of liberalism. They have just defeated a fluoride ballot measure that outspent them 10 to 1. This town is full of new age pseudo - science believers. We have a natural medical school that is expanding like wildfire. Herbal medicine, acupuncture, healing crystals and the like. This city is anti science in many ways, the hip upscale shopping districts of remodeled trendy stores are in next to new age healing and spiritual shops that sell goddesses and magic hippie potions. The town has one of the highest number of bookstores per capita in the country but you should see the size of the new age religion and pseudo-science sections . There are many of them here and they are making money. These people are the ones with the liberal mindset that are against scientifically supported genetic and public health issues like vaccinations and fluoride. But they do support anthropological climate change.

 

The others that I was referring to earlier as of a liberal background also acknowledge the warming but are hung up on the anthropological causation. Now here is my opinion on this. In having conversation with both groups over the last forty years and discussing environmental, business, economic, social and now climate change, the skeptical people seem to be a lot more grounded in reality. They think all that new age crap is irrational, they saw them defeat fluoride, they see them on the local news protesting very rational issues. These pro climate people are of a radicalize liberal mindset somewhat similar to the 1960's. I think the skeptical group has a more balanced view and can discuss technical aspects of the subject that the pro climate warming people seem more knee jerk about.

 

This issue has a similarity to an older contentious environmental debate in this part of the country. We now suppress wildfires in our local forests while restricting thinning of insect damage trees. They don't want roads into these areas either. Natural fires should maintain the forest floor fuel at a low enough level to burn through quickly, saving the larger trees and suppressing insect damage. Now they burn so hot the ground is baked to a ceramic in some places. The skeptical group understands the need to let it burn on a regular bases or thin to reduce the fuel content. Burning is not practical because of increased population in these areas and control issues. The pro climate change group won earlier legal victories that does not allow the roads or thinning but want firefighting with just water without chemicals. They talk of forest spirits and mother earth. In America some of the most pro anthropological climate change supporters have some rather irrational core beliefs. arc

[D H]

The city that I live just outside of, is a bastion of liberalism. They have just defeated a fluoride ballot measure that outspent them 10 to 1. This town is full of new age pseudo - science believers. We have a natural medical school that is expanding like wildfire. Herbal medicine, acupuncture, healing crystals and the like. This city is anti science in many ways ...

 

Why do you persist in bringing up the wrongs committed by people who you dislike as if that somehow justifies the wrongs you commit? It doesn't. Weren't you taught that two wrongs don't make a right?

 

 

The others that I was referring to earlier as of a liberal background also acknowledge the warming but are hung up on the anthropological causation. Now here is my opinion on this. In having conversation with both groups over the last forty years and discussing environmental, business, economic, social and now climate change, the skeptical people seem to be a lot more grounded in reality.

 

Bzzzt, wrong. The skeptical side of global warming is largely grounded in fiction. The arguments by the rejectionist side of global warming are 100% pure fiction. is particularly true of those who reject global warming.

 

 

This issue has a similarity to an older contentious environmental debate in this part of the country. We now suppress wildfires in our local forests while restricting thinning of insect damage trees. They don't want roads into these areas either. Natural fires should maintain the forest floor fuel at a low enough level to burn through quickly, saving the larger trees and suppressing insect damage. Now they burn so hot the ground is baked to a ceramic in some places. The skeptical group understands the need to let it burn on a regular bases or thin to reduce the fuel content. Burning is not practical because of increased population in these areas and control issues. The pro climate change group won earlier legal victories that does not allow the roads or thinning but want firefighting with just water without chemicals. They talk of forest spirits and mother earth. In America some of the most pro anthropological climate change supporters have some rather irrational core beliefs.

 

Bzzt, wrong again. Get your facts straight! "We now suppress wildfires in our local forests while restricting thinning of insect damage trees." -- That was the policy of the Forest Service up until the 1960s. It was liberal environmentalism that drove the change from fire prevention to fire management.

 

Fire prevention does remain the policy in non-wilderness areas. In those areas where the Forest Service does have a policy of fire prevention, it's conservative economics rather than liberal environmentalism that drives this policy. Those trees are valuable assets to lumber companies. The fire prevention policies exist to protect lumber companies, not the environment.

[arc]

 

Why do you persist in bringing up the wrongs committed by people who you dislike as if that somehow justifies the wrongs you commit? It doesn't. Weren't you taught that two wrongs don't make a right?

DH, I bring this up to challenge the apparent approval of many "rational" people to use the acceptance of scientifically backed evidence on climate change as a qualifier for determining which people in the USA and anywhere else possess rational thought. And the rejection of the same evidence as a dis-qualifier of rational thought. Nothing more.

 

Is what I said different in tone than;

 

 

Maybe not you specifically, but you western Europeans have your share of irrationalisms. The modern day adherents of the body of anti-knowledge started by Ned Ludd (one of yours, not ours) include the anti-vaccination crowd, the anti-nuclear crowd, the anti-GMO crowd -- those are largely European ideas with predominantly European followers. Yes, they're here too, but in smaller numbers than in Europe.

I believe I simply elaborated a little more than you.

 

 

Simple. People everywhere for the most part are not rational beings. We are instead rationalizing beings. A corollary is that irrationality, anti-intellectualism, and technophobia are rampant and know no political bounds.

I believe I was affirming this in my post. I have observed this repeatedly in this city. Most recently here with the fluoride defeat.

 

You stated in post 12;

 

Finally, what about the US? Global warming skeptics are almost exclusively from the radical right. This group leans more toward libertarianism as opposed than authoritarianism (except where libertarianism conflicts with other beliefs). Global warming strongly conflicts with the libertarian (minimal government), Ayn Randian ("smokestacks are beautiful"), paleo-orthodoxical religious views ("God made man to have dominion over the Earth") that predominate this group. This group is particularly susceptible to anti-intellectualism because, in their minds, they know that science oftentimes is dead wrong. Evolution is false, cosmology is false, astronomy is false. In their minds, global warming is yet another example of science getting it wrong.

And 14

 

In this case, they are. Or at least a significant fraction of them are. The far right's global warming skepticism is worse than mere ignorance. It is willful ignorance.

 

Everyone is subject to irrational behaviors. The right thing to do is not to proudly wear those irrational beliefs and behaviors as a badge on ones chest. Being intentionally stupid is not something to be proud about. It is something to be ashamed of. The right thing to do to be ever vigilant against those irrational beliefs and to stop them in their tracks when one sees that one is exhibiting such beliefs and behaviors.

 

I would agree with this, maybe if I were to move to Texas and evaluate the irrational behaviors of the locals there you would not be so critical of my comments. Is there bias in your assessments of my post. Do I appear to be criticizing people that you may allow lenience to?

 

I will take a guess and say this paragraph below may have caused some of your criticism. This is an observation of the local flavor of my home area.

 

The others that I was referring to earlier as of a liberal background also acknowledge the warming but are hung up on the anthropological causation. Now here is my opinion on this. In having conversation with both groups over the last forty years and discussing environmental, business, economic, social and now climate change, the skeptical people seem to be a lot more grounded in reality. They think all that new age crap is irrational, they saw them defeat fluoride, they see them on the local news protesting very rational issues. These pro climate people are of a radicalize liberal mindset somewhat similar to the 1960's. I think the skeptical group has a more balanced view and can discuss technical aspects of the subject that the pro climate warming people seem more knee jerk about.

This city is 80% democrat, I can only evaluate what flora and fauna are available. The pro anthropologic climate group make up the larger share of this cities democrats, maybe 60-70%, they are the ones that defeated fluoridation, they like herbal medicine, believe in good and bad karma, want no selective logging and no fire roads to fight fires. That little 30-40% of the remaining democrats here voted for fluoride and possess in my opinion a more rational view of most things in life. I am willing to bet most of the doctors and dentists in this city are in this group along with a large segment of other science professionals. Some of the 30-40% group, ones that I have spoken with, are the ones that I am referring to as possessing doubt. They may be considered a conservative democrat by some but would not pass as such in other more conservative cities.

 

 

Bzzzt, wrong. The skeptical side of global warming is largely grounded in fiction. The arguments by the rejectionist side of global warming are 100% pure fiction. is particularly true of those who reject global warming.

 

I didn't say it wasn't. My post is not regarding whether its fiction or fact, it is regarding the doubt in a select group of democrats that appear to exhibit a higher degree of rational thought in most issues. Reread it please.

 

 

Bzzt, wrong again. Get your facts straight! "We now suppress wildfires in our local forests while restricting thinning of insect damage trees." -- That was the policy of the Forest Service up until the 1960s. It was liberal environmentalism that drove the change from fire prevention to fire management.

 

Fire prevention does remain the policy in non-wilderness areas. In those areas where the Forest Service does have a policy of fire prevention, it's conservative economics rather than liberal environmentalism that drives this policy. Those trees are valuable assets to lumber companies. The fire prevention policies exist to protect lumber companies, not the environment.

 

For one, this is to highlight the local pro climate groups irrational opposition to roads that provide access to lightning caused fires. Fires that thinning of damaged timber would help slow the spread of by removing the fuel. This will then reduce the damage of larger areas of forest. BTW some natural areas should have 60-80 tons of forest floor debris per acre with regular natural burning. People will not accept letting forests of 400-500 year old trees burn Ala natural. Some now have 450 tons per acre from lack of thinning and suppression practices. When it burns, and it will burn, it will kill everything even below grade. The rational group understands this. You need roads in for thinning and fire fighting. The others want fires fought but have irrational concepts of management.

 

This guys views are typical to a surprising degree here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Arrow

 

Let me know if you think this guy possess an appreciable degree of rational thinking.

 

 

This issue has a similarity to an older contentious environmental debate in this part of the country. We now suppress wildfires in our local forests while restricting thinning of insect damage trees. They don't want roads into these areas either. Natural fires should maintain the forest floor fuel at a low enough level to burn through quickly, saving the larger trees and suppressing insect damage. Now they burn so hot the ground is baked to a ceramic in some places. The skeptical group understands the need to let it burn on a regular bases or thin to reduce the fuel content. Burning is not practical because of increased population in these areas and control issues. The pro climate change group won earlier legal victories that does not allow the roads or thinning but want firefighting with just water without chemicals. They talk of forest spirits and mother earth. In America some of the most pro anthropological climate change supporters have some rather irrational core beliefs. arc

 

DH, I agreed with most of the points you made earlier. But I think some rational people have an irrational view as to what can be deducted from some peoples "rational" about climate change. I think it is of limited capability as a sampling instrument to judge overall rational thinking and behavior. arc

Edited June 14, 2013 by arc

[D H]

DH, I bring this up to challenge the apparent approval of many "rational" people to use the acceptance of scientifically backed evidence on climate change as a qualifier for determining which people in the USA and anywhere else possess rational thought. And the rejection of the same evidence as a dis-qualifier of rational thought. Nothing more.

I call BS. You apparently are using this to justify your own irrational beliefs that global warming doesn't exist, and if it does that humans are not the cause of it.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Let me know if you think this guy possess an appreciable degree of rational thinking.

Whether this guy is capable of rational thinking is completely irrelevant. His irrational far left ideology does not justify your irrational beliefs. One more time, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

DH, I agreed with most of the points you made earlier.

No, you are disagreeing with the points I made earlier. That irrational beliefs are universal means that every single one of us needs to be ever vigilant against our own irrationality. You are using the irrational beliefs of others to justify your own. Sorry, that illogic doesn't fly.

[arc]

 

I call BS. You apparently are using this to justify your own irrational beliefs that global warming doesn't exist, and if it does that humans are not the cause of it.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I did not say whether I agree or disagree with the consensus. That is irrelevant. I do claim and show that an acceptance of the consensus view on climate change does not validate a person as having rational thought processing abilities. I have given examples of people who accept the consensus view in conjunction with what appears to be irrational views of fluoridation and other current issues. Can one balance these inconsistencies, can someone be an eco-terrorist who breaks into university labs and destroys research redeem their irrational thinking deficit with a single rational choice of climate change? Of coarse not.

 

So how can one not know someone else, someone who may have a history of very rational decisions, and arbitrarily use a single opinion to cast derision and judgement. That would seem an irrational judgement don't you think? Do we not make decisions base on preponderance of evidence? Is that not how the climate change science is evaluated?

 

Yet , earlier in this thread a single opinion against was declared evidence enough of irrational thought.

 

The right thing to do is not to proudly wear those irrational beliefs and behaviors as a badge on ones chest. Being intentionally stupid is not something to be proud about. It is something to be ashamed of. The right thing to do to be ever vigilant against those irrational beliefs and to stop them in their tracks when one sees that one is exhibiting such beliefs and behaviors.

 

Seems rather harsh and judgmental. Kinda throws them all in together. Let me try, it looks fun.

 

Their just one giant mass of stupid. I bet their kids are stupid too. They shouldn't even be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be allowed to breed.

 

No thanks, I'll stick to my way, it feels more scientific.

The position I take on this is to point out that one pro or con opinion on this issue cannot be used to determine a person's intellect or propensity for rational decision making. arc

Edited June 15, 2013 by arc

[Essay]

....

No thanks, I'll stick to my way, it feels more scientific.

The position I take on this is to point out that one pro or con opinion on this issue cannot be used to determine a person's intellect or propensity for rational decision making. arc

...feels more scientific?

 

Arc, let me take a stab at this "rational/irrational" perspective. There are many rational reasons not to worry about any long-term problems or decisions. Mostly, "rational" becomes much more obvious and relevant for short-term problems or decisions, and so it is easy to point to many rational decisions based on short term self-interests.

It just occurred to me that any two perspectives, which operate and make decisions based upon differing time scales, will probably see the other perspective as irrational. Obviously, rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic is rational, if you know the ship is unsinkable and could see no deadline. Others, who had enough information about the design and/or new conditions of the ship, could rationally predict the need to be more concerned, because they would see a deadline.

Hmmmm, I guess I'm only saying that more information will help lead to a better informed decision. But specifically, more information about the long-term consequences and dangers would help inform a more balanced decision: balanced between the many short-term, and rational, reasons to not worry; and the few long-term, and significant, reasons to worry. Information about significance may help "weight" the rationality underlying various decisions, which inform what AGW means to you.

===

Personally I like AGW, here and now, because we get warmer nights and winters, and we don't get much bad or extreme weather here, and we have air conditioning too. And in my lifetime, things won't change too much (more than they already have... due mostly to population growth and the consequent habitat and resource and biodiversity loss). But I can see where this is going. And I can also see how a much larger change will be wrought globally, based on the physical properties of oxidized carbon--see oh two.

You probably agree we shouldn't be running up too large of a National Debt, since it will saddle our kids with inflation and/or sluggish economic growth--more or less--right? That sounds rational to me, even though I want stimulus spending now. Rationally it is easy for me to justify various stimulus-spending programs, since they should make it easier to bring the debt down in the future. But at some point, the weight of debt building up will outweigh the benefits of stimulus, and decisions that seem rational in the perspective of one time frame, then seem irrational in the perspective of another time frame.

Climate debt, more fully accounted for in your perspective, may help you weight the rationality of your future decisions (or decisions relating to your future). The science underlying the "Greenhouse theory" is not based on observed changes in the temperature trends, or on the observed net melting of land and sea ice, or on the observed changes in plant growth or animal migration patterns, or on any observed trends.

The theory is based on the physical properties of carbon dioxide (oxidized carbon), which globally continues to acidify the oceans and soils, and add some fraction of a Watt per square meter of heating, since its solubility and IR spectrum aren't based on beliefs. Changing significant factors, by more than 100% within our lifetime, will condemn our children's grandchildren to a debt repayment beyond their ability to cope.

===

This may or may not be true for economic (the dismal science) debt, but it is rationally much more likely to be true for a physical science debt, as we radically change the long-evolved atmospheric chemistry of this spaceship Earth, where we recently evolved to live in relative stability.

Yes, the differences between the MWP & the LIA count as relative stability, when you see what the planet's climate usually does, historically, before civilizations arose. Our current "climate forcing" will cause changes, after a century or so, much more severe than the change between the LIA & the MWP.

And it was long before our species evolved, that the oceans last acidified to a point where long-evolved communities and eco-webs would be disrupted, and food chains supporting biodiversity would collapse, and successions of more primitive species bloom as newly created niches evolve. In other words, the 6th mass extinction event may be problematic for our species' survival, and certainly it will be problematic for civilization's survival.

It would be a shame if our great-grandchildren didn't have computers, or an internet to access, just because civilization had broken down a little too far and for too long. It would be surprising if we didn't repeat the usual pattern of "rise-n-fall" that civilizations seem to follow... now that we operate as a global civilization; but I try to remain hopeful.

And learning more about the long-term perspective helps to weight which "rational" decisions are important for individuals over the short term, and which are important for civilization over the long term. Hopefully, significance, as well as rationality, needs to also be accounted for.

~

[arc]

Hello Essay, Thank you for replying. I take all your points and agree things will possibly be quite bad in the future. I am a fan of history, but I would never say I am a historian. My personal take on this climate change situation is the scientific data is correct for their observations, everything adds up. My starting post is why I think Americans are skeptical and that is where this began for me. The conversation evolved to Americans are ignorant and then went further to they are stupid.

 

This was determined to be caused by irrational thought and was pointed out to me as being almost entirely contained within a certain distinguishable population of irrationally stupid. (Lets call them group 1) I am aware of other examples, and in fact larger samples of irrational thought populations can be found and I made a presentation of my findings. This was apparently not acceptable to the committee. I bring up this parallel and larger population of irrational people (group 2) because they will be in charge of things entirely once the other group is marginalized by popular culture. There is nothing more effective than well liked celebrities dehumanizing their victims.

 

So my feelings are this power shift will not include any increase in rational thought in group 2. Why would it. I have shown they participate in irrational behaviors parallel to group 1 and even contain individuals that have the same propensity towards violence as group 1. The rational individuals in both groups are quite small, mostly in academia, business, military and science. To small of a total to, if for any reason, balance the irrational group 2 as group 1 had done.

 

I have no reference in the history of drastic power shifts that include climate change. I think applying an intellectually driven example like the 1917 Russian revolution can give a little insight to the dynamics of a loss of stability in a society and total control being in one place. Germany is maybe a better example. The population was well educated and modern. If not struggling with economic crisis the tragedies that followed would not have occurred. It included the initial acquisition of power through democratic means and the marginalization of opposition groups. A very nice fit for the current situation.

 

The plan for dealing with climate change appears to involve reorganization of the energy and economic models currently being used. This is no easy job to pull off successfully. The majority of group 1 think it is fixed and will involve corruption similar to 1929 and 2008 levels. Even a large portion of group 2 has suspicions of corruption, but the suspects differ between the groups.

 

So someone like myself has great doubt that a problem of this magnitude can be successfully solved. The USA's economy and energy sectors are up for a overhaul that has never been done before with the exception of 1930 - 1945. It seems unlikely most American will sacrifice themselves to either self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period. If you screw this up there's probably no coming back in the short term. To accomplish this it looks like one irrational group will be in charge while supervised by a very small group of rational experts.

 

So I do not agree that rearranging the deck chairs is an accurate analogy. I would propose instead that you are sure you see an ice berg and you are willing to risk changing coarse through a submarine mine field to avoid it. arc

 

P.S. I really enjoy talking to everyone. You have a great thing going here.

Edited June 16, 2013 by arc

[SplitInfinity]

Hello Essay, Thank you for replying. I take all your points and agree things will possibly be quite bad in the future. I am a fan of history, but I would never say I am a historian. My personal take on this climate change situation is the scientific data is correct for their observations, everything adds up. My starting post is why I think Americans are skeptical and that is where this began for me. The conversation evolved to American are ignorant and then went further to they are stupid.

 

This was determined to be caused by irrational thought and was pointed out to me as being almost entirely contained within a certain distinguishable population of irrationally stupid. (Lets call them group 1) I am aware of other examples, and in fact larger samples of irrational thought populations can be found and I made a presentation of my findings. This was apparently not acceptable to the committee. I bring up this parallel and larger population of irrational people (group 2) because they will be in charge of things entirely once the other group is marginalized by popular culture. There is nothing more effective than well liked celebrities dehumanizing their victims.

 

So my feelings are this power shift will not include any increase in rational thought in group 2. Why would it. I have shown they participate in irrational behaviors parallel to group 1 and even contain individuals that have the same propensity towards violence as group 1. The rational individuals in both groups are quite small, mostly in academia, business, military and science. To small of a total to, if for any reason, balance the irrational group 2 as group 1 had done.

 

I have no reference in the history of drastic power shifts that include climate change. I think applying an intellectually driven example like the 1917 Russian revolution can give a little insight to the dynamics of a loss of stability in a society and total control being in one place. Germany is maybe a better example. The population was well educated and modern. If not struggling with economic crisis the tragedies that followed would not have occurred. It included the initial acquisition of power through democratic means and the marginalization of opposition groups. A very nice fit for the current situation.

 

The plan for dealing with climate change appears to involve reorganization of the energy and economic models currently being used. This is no easy job to pull off successfully. The majority of group 1 think it is fixed and will involve corruption similar to 1929 and 2008 levels. Even a large portion of group 2 has suspicions of corruption, but the suspects differ between the groups.

 

So someone like myself has great doubt that a problem of this magnitude can be successfully solved. The USA's economy and energy sectors are up for a overhaul that has never been done before with the exception of 1930 - 1945. It seems unlikely most American will sacrifice themselves to either self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period. If you screw this up there's probably no coming back in the short term. To accomplish this it looks like one irrational group will be in charge while supervised by a very small group of rational experts.

 

So I do not agree that rearranging the deck chairs is an accurate analogy. I would propose instead that you are sure you see an ice berg and you are willing to risk changing coarse through a submarine mine field to avoid it. arc

 

P.S. I really enjoy talking to everyone. You have a great thing going here.

 

Arc...the Global Warming issue is not considered fantasy by the U.S. Military. That I can tell you with certainty.

 

Although because of American Politics and Economics...Global Warming has become a Hot Bed issue with one side claiming it to be Pseudo-Science and the other claiming it to be Inevitable...Global Warming Reality seems to be some where in between.

 

Although there is no doubt the Planets Climate is warming up...and there is no doubt that by pumping great amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that this is accelerating the process...as well that due to warming trends frozen Methane in Alaskan and Siberian Lakes is converting into Gas and this Gas can heat up our atmosphere at many times the rate of CO2....there should be a balanced plan to reduce such emissions as to force strict and major changes too rapidly would have a huge effect on the Global Economy.

 

The U.S. Military is right now and has for some time been planning and developing a U.S. Naval Fleet for Arctic Patrols as they know within 10 years there will no longer be any Arctic Sea Ice. Because of this new shipping lanes will be available as well as this opens up the Arctic Sea Floor for Oil Exploration and the Russians actually sent out a Mini-Sub to place a small Russian Flag upon the bottom of the Arctic Ocean in some type of CLAIM for drilling rights.

 

The U.S. Military is also developing plans and forces to act when the inevitable Resource Wars begin due to Climate Change causing drought, famine and displacement of people living in low lying areas below sea level which will be flooded.

 

Split Infinity