The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate

[Donk]

How do you suppose we teach people to distinguish hoax from reality?

That doesn't seem to be possible. Intelligent people can be fooled quite easily - the only way to learn is by bitter experience. Pain is a good teacher: most children fall downstairs - once. Burn themselves on a hot stove - once. No amount of nagging or explaining gets the message through so well.

 

Unfortunately, this learning experience will involve the whole human race, and it's likely to be very painful ;)

[BrianG]

Yes, One-Trial Learning is very effective.

[BrianG]

Sorry. Still wrong. Airborne fraction, remember?

 

You're so off-target that I'd better give you the answer:

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

 

In other words, carbon dioxide IS increasing, but the proportion caused by burning fossil fuels remains at around 43% of the total. Understand? Now run back and explain it to your friends. Thank you

 

If output of man made carbon dioxide is increasing, then why doesn't the proportion increase? Doesn't it dwell in the air like the IPCC says? Is it being swamped out by carbon dioxide from natural sources?

[Donk]

If output of man made carbon dioxide is increasing, then why doesn't the proportion increase? Doesn't it dwell in the air like the IPCC says? Is it being swamped out by carbon dioxide from natural sources?

I could give you three possibilities as to what's going on, but this isn't the thread for it.

 

I'm much more interested in why you're so sceptical of everything said to you by proponents of AGW, yet you swallow obvious and deliberate misinformation when it's presented to you by the other side of the debate. That's what this thread is about, after all.

[BrianG]

I'm skeptical of everything.

 

Yet, I've never accused you of dishonesty or insincerity. I don't read many posts from your side that give that courtesy. I've never questioned your motives and I've certainly never questioned your knowledge or intelligence.

[Donk]

I'm skeptical of everything.

 

Yet, I've never accused you of dishonesty or insincerity. I don't read many posts from your side that give that courtesy. I've never questioned your motives and I've certainly never questioned your knowledge or intelligence.

Dodging the question? Why am I not surprised?

 

Yes, I'm accusing you of dishonesty. From your first few posts arguing with AGW: all that stuff about the bubbles in your drink of pop, your baby's breath... very poetic, but trying to disguise the truth: it's about belching smokestacks, traffic fumes, burning forests. We know that, and you know that.

 

You posted a piece yesterday where you had the science clearly very wrong. I called you on it. I'm now asking you to explain why you posted it, when it took me just three minutes to find the truth of the matter. What was going on inside your head at the time? What was your source for that outrageous piece of disinformation?

 

This is a science forum. Anyone who tries to play fast-and-loose with science, to further some sort of political agenda, doesn't deserve much courtesy.

[BrianG]

Belchings smokestacks give us energy and industry, automobiles give us the freedom to travel where and when we want and man has been burning forests for hundreds of thousand years.

 

Your accusation is offensive.

[Donk]

I'll ask the question one more time. I doubt if you'll be able to answer it, but the fact that you can't is considerable evidence of your bad faith on this forum. And we tend to go by the evidence on here

You posted a piece yesterday where you had the science clearly very wrong. I called you on it. I'm now asking you to explain why you posted it, when it took me just three minutes to find the truth of the matter. What was going on inside your head at the time? What was your source for that outrageous piece of disinformation?

 

This is a science forum. Anyone who tries to play fast-and-loose with science, to further some sort of political agenda, doesn't deserve much courtesy.

[BrianG]

I'll ask the question one more time. I doubt if you'll be able to answer it, but the fact that you can't is considerable evidence of your bad faith on this forum. And we tend to go by the evidence on here

 

My bad faith? Can you cite an example?

 

Instead of good faith question, your "question" feels like badgering.

[Essay]

Belchings smokestacks give us energy and industry, automobiles give us the freedom to travel where and when we want and man has been burning forests for hundreds of thousand years.

 

;) Your accuracy accusation is offensive.

I'm not surprised....

 

===

 

 

 

Brian, you posted this "email" below, supposedly from the CRU server as one of the climategate emails:

As you suggested over there, it sounds like spam (or maybe some scientists is on a mailing list), but I didn't think it was worth discussing on that thread as evidence of problems with climate science ...or the politics thereof.

 

But here, on "The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate" it seems like a good opportunity to bring up a particular hang-up that you seem to often fixate upon. Government control vs. freedom often crops up in your reasoning and justifications for advocating against government-imposed mitigation (based on its "untested" status) as a huge drain on money that would be better spent on freely selected energy useage.

"Belchings smokestacks give us energy and industry, automobiles give us the freedom to travel where and when we want...."

...

 

 

But mostly I wanted to bring up these "choices" you offer regarding CO2 mitigation.

The left wants large government programs, the right wants individual freedom. Thus we have choices between government run CO2 emission controls and individual freedom to produce and use the energy we need. We choose between government grants, tax incentives, mandates and subsidies and low taxes and a market that offers a wide choice for energy supplies.

What sort of choice is that; to have CO2 controls or not to have them...?

===

 

But in general, I don't think the left "wants" large government programs. It's just that is the only way to have any sort of wide-scale program. I don't want to rely on private enterprise, and the profit motive, to take care of some emergency like a pandemic; I want a large program from the constitutionally-limited government ...to look out for the general welfare.

 

The right "wants" individual freedom ...to do what? The freedom to buy SUV's and drive them wherever and whenever they want? That is the only freedom you have talked about ("...our love of personally owned vehicles is a freedom worth defending." -BrianG 3 weeks ago) ...multiple times on these fora.

 

It seems you fear government control the most. Climate change mitigation is only one (perhaps the biggest) representative of something that might lead to more government "control" (as manifested in the loss of freedom for individuals to drive SUV wherever and whenever...), and that seems to be your reason to oppose it.

 

So I guess I'd like to ask if the ramifications/consequences of climate change (as predicted) mean anything to you as you assess the potential for "large government programs" that presumedly infringe on "individual freedoms," OR is there any level of consequence (potential bad occurence) that would motivate you to accept "large government programs."

:hyper: Oh, I know one large program that infringes on your freedoms, that you are in favor of (I assume); that of terror mitigation -lots of unproved, untested programs involved there, eh?

===

 

I guess it just boils down to what one fears the most. Scientist look at the data and fear for the future of civilization based on global climate shift. The general populace looks at the info-tainment news cycle and fears lightning, sharks, bears, gangs, nukes, flu-shots, distant dictators, expanding socialism, burgeoning pirates, butter, salt, peeing too much or not peeing enough, restless legs, etc., and they want the freedom to calm their legs and pee however they want, and to be free from all those symptoms of a world out of their control.

 

Fear of loss of (personal, individual, immediate) freedom seems to drive the denialist the most.

===

 

I notice that you also lump secular with big government, and religious with individual liberty (or is it the other way around? It must be, because later you say AGW appeals to "the religious impulse."

I find it interesting that there is a secular/religious and big government/individual liberty divide in the Global Warming debate. The left wants socialism, and AGW provides an agenda for worldwide political change. AGW transcends nationalism, AGW appeals to a nature worship, the religious impulse in human nature.

 

I'm not sure I get the association ...one way or the other.

I think there are some Christian faiths that foresee a thousand years of peace and harmony -under a world government- as a part of the Second Coming (or something like that). Is that something to be feared?

 

Here's the gist of that email you raised as an example where the "subject is explicitly political."

 

To all Peoples of the Earth,

 

Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,

human rights, global concepts and democracy...

May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.

May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.

 

Oh goodness! What a threatening political thought!

===

 

So Brian, do you understand freedom to mean: "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion?"

 

~ Happy :) Sunday

 

p.s.

They are secret programs, so.... :lol:

 

Maybe tested, but unproven things; such as telephone tapping/data mining, airport security equipment and procedures, nation building....

[Donk]

My bad faith? Can you cite an example?

 

Instead of good faith question, your "question" feels like badgering.

Try reading the post - I've given an example of your bad faith right there. You came on to a science site and posted deliberate misinformation. I gave you a fair opportunity to check it and correct yourself. When you failed to do so, I asked why you'd done it. That's what this thread is about, after all. I asked three times in all. If you'd answered, I wouldn't have needed to ask again. Is that "badgering"? How many times have you asked the same question on here? Are you "badgering" us? Or are you sincerely trying to get an answer, as I was?

 

I'm truly sorry you feel this way, Brian. I was simply trying to understand your motivation in posting the things that you do - that's what this thread is about, after all. Since you refuse to answer, I'll have to tell you what I think happened.

 

That piece of disinformation. The subject was nothing to do with the thread topic, but the fact that it was incorrect most certainly was.

 

I'd mentioned the rise in CO₂; you jumped in with a link that you claimed as evidence that CO₂ was not, in fact, rising. You closed by saying:

I can't swear Wolfgang isn't in the pockets of big oil, Geophysical Research Letters, he might be a petroleum geologist. I better check it out.

You didn't check it out: you had no intention of doing so. That was a simple sneer. Badly misjudged, as events worked out :)

 

I, however, did check it out. I take no credit for internet research ability: the truth was quite easy to find. Yet when I pointed out that you were wrong, you refused to believe it.

I didn't claim that he didn't support climate change mitigation, just that his research indicates CO₂ levels aren't increasing, we have more time.

 

Talk about a useful idiot, they don't come better than that.

I suggested that you check the science for yourself, instead of taking other people's word for it. There was a strong clue for you there: on this site you come across as ultra-sceptic, a "show me" type. Yet in this case, even when told that you were getting it wrong you didn't bother to check it. You were totally convinced that your information was right. After a little more back-and-forth I let you into the Big Secret. Which wasn't, of course, a secret. You could have found it out for yourself as quickly as I did.

 

All this tells me several things:

1) You have little or no knowledge of climate science.

2) You have no interest in gaining such knowledge.

3) Your talking points come from one of the websites I quoted in my post HERE, and you are one of the "useful idiots" who come to sites like this one, filled with missionary zeal to convert us heathens.

4) On this site you pose as a sceptic, but on wattsupwiththat, or wherever, you're a wide-eyed believer.

 

You seem to be quite intelligent, but intelligence can be a trap: unless it's combined with knowledge, it's very easy to reach a false conclusion.

 

There's hope for you. Try looking around. Check what people tell you. You disbelieve most of what you're told on here: try applying the same scepticism to the other side of the argument. Then come back here in a couple of months and let us know what you've learned.

[BrianG]

...So I guess I'd like to ask if the ramifications/consequences of climate change (as predicted) mean anything to you as you assess the potential for "large government programs" that presumedly infringe on "individual freedoms," OR is there any level of consequence (potential bad occurence) that would motivate you to accept "large government programs."

There would have to be a demonstrated level of consequence, not a purely conjectural level. Freedom is too precious to loose on speculation.

 

...Oh, I know one large program that infringes on your freedoms, that you are in favor of (I assume); that of terror mitigation -lots of unproved, untested programs involved there, eh?

Can you name an example of an "unproved, untested program[]"?

 

...So Brian, do you understand freedom to mean: "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion?"...

 

Freedom of religion.

[HydrogenBond]

Another angle for the psychology and sociology of the global warming debate, is connected to historically reoccurring symbolism of the apocalypse. We must repent the sin of CO2 or the end is near.

 

One way to approach reoccurring collective psychology, is to assume the outward manifestation, du jour, are symbols, that are pushing similar buttons at an unconscious level. Even if this was a scam (hypothetically), if the symbolism line up, the buttons can be pushed, collectively.

 

One way to approach this angle is to interpret the major things, as though they are collective dream symbols for all of us. The area of the earth that is causing global warming, is not on the ground but high up in the air. It is not the CO2 on the ground or at the instinctive level (ground), but the CO2 that is far away from instinct, in the stratosphere that is the problem. This layer of the mind, far from instinct, is causing heat to be trapped (repression), causing the earth or our instinct to heat up. Once that instinct heats up, the normal balance of the earth or all the instincts will be upset.

 

The source of this symbolic problem is not natural, but is manmade. The problem begins by digging up fossil fuel, that is buried below the ground. Below the ground is the unconscious. Fossil fuel stems from something once alive in the past, that has changed over time, via pressure and heat i.e., reoccurring biblical symbolism. The atheist don't expect gods and spirits (such as when it was alive or just written). Rather they need something modified by that reflects the needs of the times. It has to be more rationally sounding, without gods or else it won't work.

 

Digging up and modifying the fossil fuel into gasoline and plastics is not the problem. The problem begins when we burn the fuel. The first aspect or digging and processing is simply re-orientating the mind to the ancient apocalyptic symbolism, using something modern and more meaningful for the times. There were many test balloons. The problems begins with the chain reaction stemming from a combustion type process, i.e., virus meme. This one worked just fine.

 

The impact of the meme is not at the ground level of instinct. It works higher up in the stratosphere of the mind where the imagination can go wild. The air is thin or doesn't have enough precedent there to regulate this. There the mind reflects the heat back, to heat instinct such as fear. Some of the fears are flooding and other dramatic climate changes. These symbolize being overwhelmed by unconsciousness in par with the instincts getting worked up.

 

Water symbolizes thoughts. Ice is solid water (cold hard facts or fixed thoughts) that remains fixed and reliable. The solid thoughts within symbolic glaciers take a long time to build. If these solid thoughts of culture become fluid, reason could break down (north-south melts; cause-effect melts). If the ice for reason is gone, there is a disruption of the mind. Leaders can take us by storm changing the social landscape.

 

The data now appearing, is cooling the CO2 combustion from the virus meme, cooling the symbolic global warming. The chain reaction can't spread as fast but it is still burning even with the cold water. We still got 2012 for another collective dream. That can be fun, too, if we approach it symbolically, instead of literally. The Mayans had a different collective dream in mind to stimulate social change.

[REASON]

There would have to be a demonstrated level of consequence, not a purely conjectural level. Freedom is too precious to loose on speculation.

 

Such as speculation that there will be no consequences to continuing the current rate of CO2 emmissions.

 

 

Can you name an example of an "unproved, untested program[]"?

 

The invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

 

Freedom of religion.

 

Freedom of religion is inclusive of freedom from religion in that it is not only the right if individuals under the Constitution to worship as they so choose, but to not have religion forced upon them.

[BrianG]

...

The invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

 

Invasion and occupation are standard ancient well tried programs. Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded and occupied many times in the past. The comparison to climate change mitigation doesn't seem to hold up.

[REASON]

Invasion and occupation are standard ancient well tried programs. Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded and occupied many times in the past.

 

Really? As part of an alleged terror mitigation program? And it's a proven success?

 

 

The comparison to climate change mitigation doesn't seem to hold up.

 

I wasn't comparing the two. You asked for an example of an "untested or unproven" terror mitigation program and I gave you one. No matter what has happened in that part of the world in the past, we invaded on the premise of "mitigating" global terrorism. There was never any testing done to see if militarism would solve or exacerbate the problem and it hasn't proven to work, so it qualifies as an example.

 

Let's not get diverted here.

[BrianG]

Really? As part of an alleged terror mitigation program? And it's a proven success?...

 

Invasion and occupation did a great job ending Nazi and Japanese terror in WWII.

 

BTW, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with global terrorism.