Why is there so much anger, backlash against those who are skeptical of Catastrophic Man-Made Climate Change? (controversial, death)

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by voiceofreazon

Why is it that someone cannot be simply skeptical of catastrophic, man-made climate change without being called a denier, which is a thinly veiled reference to holocaust deniers or evolution deniers? They are accused of being willfully ignorant of science or of taking the bible literally. Either that or they are accused of having financial interests in big oil.

This has been going on almost since the beginning of the debate. Almost from the START we've heard "The debate is over" or "the science is settled"

I am not a republican and don't listen to talking heads on either side of the aisle. When I first heard of this subject, I did not dismiss it, I tried to learn more and I listened to all sides. My skepticism began to grow for the following reasons:

- The conclusions reached in the science and in the media were becoming more and more alarmist and full of fearmongering language.

-Critics, skeptics and people with questions about the conclusions raised were ostracized, shunned, marginalized and insulted.

- There were more and more allegations of corruption, politics, activism and greed in the science community that things like Climategate blew the lid off of. That makes it very hard to trust the impartiality of the science or trust that a scientist who conducts experiments that run counter to the prevailing dogma would be given fair and equal treatment.

- The simple fact that climate science itself is a young field that is in it's infancy and relies on computer models and guesswork to make many of it's predictions.

In my opinion, it has now become essentially a cult or like a religion. Ostracize and marginalize the "infidels" who do not believe. Treat the science like it's holy scripture and can never be challenged or questioned despite the fact that is was produced in a POLITICAL, ACTIVIST environment.

People who don't blindly follow along and believe what they are told are either lumped into
A. Dumb, old testament believing, evolution denying hicks who are ignorant of science
B. People with financial interests in big oil that are threatened by a disruption of business as usual
C. There is no choice C!!!

This is the problem. There needs to be room and respect for those who simply don't buy the argument as it's been presented and I would argue that that group is LARGER than groups A and B above and I think that might be what scares and threatens the current orthodoxy on this issue!

There are those on the AGW bandwagon that are as zelous about their cause as any religious extremist. Anyone that questions their dogma and wants to see actual scientific evidence that positively links human caused CO2 emmissions to "climate change" is labeled a "denier" or worse. They are a lot like religious nutcases labeling anyone that doesn't blindly accept their dogma as heritics or infidels. There are plenty of people that honestly believe that they are right and want to promote the cause. Debating with them about the issue is like debating religion with the Taliban.

Flip side, follow the money. Much of the AGW movement is financially driven. Their stated desired are a huge redistribution of wealth, paid for by, well, everyone. Tax the energy industry, funnel money into the pockets of the manipulators and everyone that uses any kind of energy pays the bill.

[voiceofreazon]

Originally Posted by Catdancer

First, I'll say that I respect the way you've couched your question. I could be wrong but you sound like a person who's willing to listen to facts if they're presented in a logical manner. In my mind that sets you worlds apart from the talking heads of the Fox news ilk who just flatly deny that something like climate change could exist. They can be just as obnoxious as those on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Here's my take on climate change. As you stated, climate change is a relatively new field that relies heavily on computer modeling. I'm guessing that it's not all that far away from meteorological modeling used to predict the weather.........and we all can agree how unreliable or unstable a science, weather prediction can be. What seems to be written in stone one day can change vastly overnight because really..........we still have a weak understanding of how our wonderful planet works.

That being said, I certainly can't see the harm in reducing our carbon footprint on the planet or in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if these things are not contributing to climate change, they're certainly not benefiting the Earth or mankind in general. So even though I'm not completely sold on the whole idea that man could affect planetary change in such a dangerous fashion, I figure - What's the harm in being cautious?

The worst thing that can happen if we're overly cautious and listen to the doomsayers, is that we wind up with a healthier planet 20 years from now. That's where they have me. When it comes to this bright blue ball we call home, I say it's better to err on the side of caution. It's not like we have someplace else to go if we destroy this place.

I've heard that argument many times in these debates and in a sense I agree with you since I believe we should be doing these things regardless. What strikes me though is that this is the same argument that religious people use when they are in doubt about the existence of god, it's called Pascal's Wager.
Essentially, the JUST IN CASE philosophy:

The argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. Also if he doesn't exist, you will have lived a good life following the teachings of the bible.

Pascal's Wager for environmentalism, now becomes...
The argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if CAGW exists, since the possibility of the destruction of the planet outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. Also if it doesn't exist, you will have lived a good life by being resourceful, saving energy and being environmentally conscious.

Yes it's good to do these things but not because of the threat of alarmism or essentially eternal damnation and because an orthodoxy is telling you to, but because it is the right thing to do.

I am not suggesting that you subscribe to Pascal's Wager, I just find it interesting that variations of this philosophy always seem to come up in these debates and it has it's origins in struggles with one's religious faith.

[Vejadu]

There's so much backlash because warmists treat AGW like a religion, and anything that dares to challenge the "settled science" is attacked with hostility, since you either don't care about the health of the planet or are in the pockets of big business.

But big business is behind climate change hysteria as well and to think otherwise is horribly naive. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made through new initiatives, green energy companies, carbon credits, etc. Anything that threatens the consensus, threatens the billions of dollars on the line so they release bits and pieces of 'news' that serves only one purpose -- fear mongering about climate change. Predictably, warmists run around screaming about global warming and get even more people worked up about it.

[juneaubound]

Originally Posted by voiceofreazon

Why is it that someone cannot be simply skeptical of catastrophic, man-made climate change without being called a denier, which is a thinly veiled reference to holocaust deniers or evolution deniers? They are accused of being willfully ignorant of science or of taking the bible literally. Either that or they are accused of having financial interests in big oil.

Because that is the country we live in, in the year 2014. If you are skeptical about climate change you apparently (based on early responses) listen to Rush Limbaugh and are therefore an ignorant RWNJ. If you donate to conservative groups you have a ten percent chance of being audited by the IRS (when the population as a whole has a one percent chance of audited). If you privately donate to conservative causes you could lose your job. If you speak racist trash in the privacy of your own home a bimbo can shake you down and she can ruin your name. If you worked as Secretary of State under Bush you are guilty of war crimes and Snooki is acceptable but Rice isn't, to speak at a university.

If you are anti-abortion you're a narrow minded Christian. If you are anti-gay marriage you're a hater. If you believe in giving people a financial hand up instead of a financial hand out you're a hater. If you are anti illegal-immigration you're a hater. If you believe in having to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote you're a hater. If you question the viability of allowing unfettered entrance of Muslims into the country you're a hater. If you are anti-pot-legalization you're just a freakin' moron who can't keep up with the times. If you live in fly-over country you're a hugger of bibles and guns, and if you live in the south you're a redneck who hugs bibles and guns. If you support law enforcement you support thugs. If you question climate change you are anti-science.

Those who disagree with a position held by people who think their voices are more important than the voices of others, are Neanderthal throwbacks. Bible thumping, women hating, poor hating, gay hating, Muslim hating, anybody-who-isn't-white hating, war mongering, fairy believing throwbacks. Because somebody says so. And that apparently makes it so.

[Ferd]

Here is just one reason why I dont trust the brain trust.

Just this week the President of the United States agreed with the assessment of his chief science advisor John Holdren.
In this report Mr. supersmart Holdren stated that hurricanes are getting worse (by getting, i mean they are currently at this time going from not as bad, to more bad and going toward even worse)

Well, this is an area where hard data rules the day. Here is what the hard data says.

Over the last 4 decades on a global scale
The total number of tropical cyclones has trended down from about 99 to about 90 per year with last year being at 93
Total number of Hurricanes is roughtly flat at about 43 per year.
The trend in ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is basically flat with last year being very close to the 40 year low.

By every hard measurement Hurricanes are NOT getting worse. they arent getting stronger. they arent getting more frequint. they arent getting meaner. they arent doing more damage when one controls for population growth and inflation.


yet the President and his Chief Science advisor says the exact opposite.

and i am supposed to cringe and shut up when someone starts screeching about 97% yaddayaddayadda?

[Ultor]

The eco-fascists and postmodernists have spent too many years and $$$ to let empiricism get in the way of their ultimate goal - political power.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Catdancer

The worst thing that can happen if we're overly cautious and listen to the doomsayers, is that we wind up with a healthier planet 20 years from now. That's where they have me. When it comes to this bright blue ball we call home, I say it's better to err on the side of caution. It's not like we have someplace else to go if we destroy this place.

With respect, I dont agree. in the first place, if we do what doomsayers are suggesting, the cost of energy in the near term, and likely in the long term will skyrocket.

The impact of that is that poor and middle class Americans will be forced to spend a vastly larger % of their meager incomes on energy needs. This becomes a survival issue.

The impact on human misery would be very large.
Then there is the impact to the emerging world. These people are just begining to move toward our first world levels of mortality. Further, if we stiffle their move toward first world status, we impact total world population in a very negative way. The first world has a much lower population growth rate. Wealth tends to dive down birth rates. Poorer nations have more children and their children live in greater misery.

doing what the "doomsaysers" as you call them, want us to do, will lead to a world over populated by greater and greater levels of poverty and misery.

Then we have not even considered the environmental impact of our rush toward so called "clean energy" We are only now beginning to understand that wind turbines are killing ever increasing numbers of birds and bats. What is the downstream effect?

The last great eco-friendly way to generate energy was hydro.... well environmentalists today recognize the negitive impacts that has caused.

There is a law of unintended consequince that wil be satisfied.

if we are actually going to replace Fossil Fuels, we are going to have to do something more than Solar and Wind. The most likely candidates are Algae and bacteria. These have to be genetically modified to get them to produce the levels of fuel needed. While that might be a good thing, rushing can lead to the release of brand new organisms that can do untold damage to the planet.

We could talk for days about the negitive impacts of rushing ahead with these plans.

[Starman71]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Based on what Rush Limbaugh tells you? What you read in conservative blogs? My belief is based on what 97% of climate scientists believe... You'll excuse me if I choose what they believe over what YOU believe.

My Goodness... Did you notice what you just did? You actually confirmed everything the OP just wrote, with that one little post.

You lumped the OP into the conservative group - just like the OP stated happens.

You played the "Rush" card - just like the OP alluded to (not directly using Rush's name, but smart people get the point...)

Wow. Just...wow.

[ChrisFromChicago]

Originally Posted by voiceofreazon

Why is it that someone cannot be simply skeptical of catastrophic, man-made climate change without being called a denier, which is a thinly veiled reference to holocaust deniers or evolution deniers? They are accused of being willfully ignorant of science or of taking the bible literally. Either that or they are accused of having financial interests in big oil.

No tolerance for idiots?

I mean I am annoyed at 9/11 conspiracy nuts; newton nuts; and the rest. The consistent attempt to cherry pick their way to their belief. The disregard of science, facts, and reality.


Anger? yeah a little. . .but its more just slap the face OMG annoyance.



My annoyance is targeted more than those who disregard the facts, the consistent changes, and the short-term impact. The long-term impacts if people chose to be a little apathetic about i'm less inclined to hostility. Don't deny global climate change/warming whatever. You can doubt Miami will get flooded. . .i suppose


someone has to buy those condos. So i'm okay with you taking that bet without anger on my side.

[Kibby]

Originally Posted by voiceofreazon

Almost from the START we've heard "The debate is over" or "the science is settled"

Let's start with "the debate is over" .... when you hear this, it actually means - "I've lost the debate, so it's over".

Environmentalists Have Lost the Climate Change Debate

Science isn't about "debate" - it's about data. The Global Warming (used to be Cooling) folks don't care about data - they care about power and money. IF they are able to force this data-less orthodoxy on the world, then they will have control over every aspect of life. The air we breath, the water we drink - everything. A recent EPA report (and coming rule) is about Cow belches and flatulence - that can't be controlled, so it must be TAXED. Think about that - Taxing cow farts and burps isn't going do a darn thing about the Global Warming they think is going to destroy us - but it will give them control over farm animals. This is only one example, but it's the way they think and it's a good example of where they plan to go with this.

The Climate Apocalypse group (and they are all Leftists) have determined that if they can gain control over the air we breath, they can control the world - none of it is about Science. It's about Power & Money. Lots and Lots of Money. We have to also consider that we have a President and his Administration that want to impose (not legislate) policies that will literally "change" the way we live, so separation of powers and consent of the governed and other trifling concerns are no longer applicable.

All we have to do is look at what California has done to see what the future will be under this new Decree. The Leftists in California at least used the vote to impose this new orthodoxy - they want to impose it on the rest of the United States by fiat.

We already have a test case for Obama's proposition in California, the state with the most aggressive renewables portfolio standard. A mandated 33 percent of its power must be renewable energy by 2020. According to the Energy Department, residential electricity prices have already spiked 30 percent between 2006 and 2012 (when adjusted for inflation), and studies show that the cost of electricity is likely to jump 47 percent over the next 16 years. Those are real-world costs that every Californian has to divert from health care or groceries or education or investments to pay for artificially inflated energy prices.