AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[waldo]

The problem with alarmists, is that they peddle the nonsensical tripe regarding there being no economic downside at all to their environmental proposals. I'd have more respect for their opinions, and their science, if they were at least a tiny bit honest in that regard. But they're not. Which is why I have a hard time believing them regarding anything else.

if you will indulge, the exchange may prove insightful. The label denier is quite matter-of-fact, albeit with degrees of attached denial possible within it; from the fringe-of-the-fringe denying warming outright, to denying the human causal link to warming, etc.. However, from my perspective and recognition, the label alarmist doesn't provide an easy recognition as to intent/meaning. You recently put forward a somewhat bold MLW status update where you simply wrote, "Alarmism = Fascism".

if you might, could you please state your understanding of alarmism and definition of the label alarmist... and who you attach it to and why you do so. Let's make that an open-ended request for any MLW denier/fake-skeptic to chime in on.

you speak of "their science". This is quite unclear (to me) as it would appear you offer an implied distinction between alarmist science and non-alarmist science. And, of course, it's the broadest of swipes that you take here. When you extend on this to speak to the economics and "environmental proposals", I'm somewhat lost in that you don't seem to make the distinction between scientists... doing science and nothing but science... and those (typically non-scientists) engaged in policy extensions of the science. My point being, isn't science... just science? Is there alarmist science versus denier science?

[waldo]

additional insight opportunity:

left-wing causes primarily use fear mongering as a means of getting people to comply with their wishes. Witness the AGW hysteria.

- can you offer a representative sampling of AGW hysteria examples? The stated 'wish compliance' implies people accepting to an authorative, as described, left-wing entity. Can you provide representative examples of these left-wing entities, using the described fear mongering, to gain people's compliance to their/it's wishes?

Well said. It's more of a pseudo-science posing as actual science. It's part of their intolerant dogma. You either agree with them, or you're a denier, or have a mental or psychological flaw. It's like dealing with a bunch of children.

- in regards the AGW reference responded to, what criteria are you using to label the related 'AGW science' as "pseudo-science"?
.

[WestCoastRunner]

1. These companies already pay more in taxes than any other companies.

2. They're not obligated to do anything with their profits, other than pay their employees and shareholders.

3. They employ tens of thousands of people with good paying jobs. Jobs much higher than minimum wage.

All of the above is true. So what.

[WestCoastRunner]

No....integrated oil corporations have a very modest net profit margin on all that gross revenue, far less than many other industries that also have environmental impact.

Sure they do.

[waldo]

I recommend reading this very interesting article called "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science". It is an easy and fascinating read on why we delude ourselves despite wanting to hold as many true beliefs as possible.

a good read... I've referenced the same author in other MLW threads that speak to the 'Conservative/Republican war on science'. A related article reference - The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science -- and Reality

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

.

.

The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year—and it failed badly.

Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.

So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.

.

[eyeball]

Capitalism vs the Climate is at least the beginning of an honest discussion. The problem with alarmists, is that they peddle the nonsensical tripe regarding there being no economic downside at all to their environmental proposals. I'd have more respect for their opinions, and their science, if they were at least a tiny bit honest in that regard. But they're not. Which is why I have a hard time believing them regarding anything else.

Whoever said there would't be an economic downside? Probably some mealy mouthed politician.

Of course the economy is going to slow if we stop pushing the pedal to the metal. The biggest challenge will be adapting to zero growth and probably even negative growth. The offset will be an increase in natural capital that we can bequeath to future generations.

It will require individual and collective sacrifice and thriftiness from all levels of society and of course adapting will require we have completely honest and aboveboard leadership to keep us all on the straight and narrow...that would probably mean lots of law and order.

So what is it that conservatives don't get about sacrifice, thriftiness, honesty and law and order and leaving something behind for our grand-children's children?

Edited July 19, 2014 by eyeball

[TimG]

It will require individual and collective sacrifice and thriftiness from all levels of society and of course adapting will require we have completely honest and aboveboard leadership to keep us all on the straight and narrow?

Well, it is nice that you are being honest about the consequences of the policies you advocate but have you really thought through what would happen as government revenue shrinks while population increases? There would have to be major cuts to all of the government programs that are treated as rights today: healthcare, old age pensions, education, et. al. The pensions would be the worst since without a growing economy pension funds will be forced to renege on the promises made which would only increase the demand for social services while they are being cut drastically.

The inevitable outcome of this is a fracturing of society as people try to protect their benefits while demanding that "others" pay the cost. In short, there is zero chance of any such consensus ever emerging and sustaining itself.

This means policies that promote economic growth are the only viable option for any government. Unfortunately, this also means some politicians will choose to be lying hypocrites by pretending to pander to environmental causes because it gets votes from people who lack any understanding the economy which they depend on.

Edited July 19, 2014 by TimG

[GostHacked]

I deny it simply because of the many forms of weather control that many governments and private entities are using around the world. I've gone back as far as the 1850s to see where the notion of weather modification started. Now with many forms of technology the wide spread use of cloud seeding, geo-engineering weather is being deliberately manipulated if not outright controlled.

[-1=e^ipi]

This whole thread seems like an attempt to set up some appeal to motive fallacy. But anyway...

I deny it simply because of the many forms of weather control that many governments and private entities are using around the world. I've gone back as far as the 1850s to see where the notion of weather modification started. Now with many forms of technology the wide spread use of cloud seeding, geo-engineering weather is being deliberately manipulated if not outright controlled.

Insane conspiracy noted. Please remember to put on your aluminium foil hat.

[GostHacked]

This whole thread seems like an attempt to set up some appeal to motive fallacy. But anyway...

Insane conspiracy noted. Please remember to put on your aluminium foil hat.

I've done enough reading on this to convince me that weather modification does in fact take place. And I mean reading, not watching videos on youtube. But there are plenty of good videos out there on the matter.

This document goes back to the 1950s.

https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1965/nsb1265.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pollard_Espy

This was the man behind the forest fire idea in the 1850s. Setting large tracts of forest on fire to heat up the air to make it rain in another area. Storm convection was some of the things he was able to observe.

I would not ask you to take my word for it.

[WestCoastRunner]

What really bothers me about this thread is that some folks here have blocked contributors which is absolutely not conducive to a productive informative debate. People who block other members of this forum degrade the forum. It seems ridiculous to contribute to this thread when we have this immature schoolyard behaviour going on.

[WestCoastRunner]

What really bothers me about this thread is that some folks here have blocked contributors which is absolutely not conducive to a productive informative debate. People who block other members of this forum degrade the forum. It seems ridiculous to contribute to this thread when we have this immature schoolyard behaviour going on.

And I need to repeat here ' boy schoolyard behaviour'

[On Guard for Thee]

No....integrated oil corporations have a very modest net profit margin on all that gross revenue, far less than many other industries that also have environmental impact.

That's gotta be the dumbest statement I've heard on here. Exxon Mobil makes more profit than any company, on the planet , ever.

[WestCoastRunner]

That's gotta be the dumbest statement I've heard on here. Exxon Mobil makes more profit than any company, on the planet , ever.

Im waiting for BC for support his claims.

[On Guard for Thee]

Im waiting for BC for support his claims.

That might be hard to do. But yes, I bet he tries.

[WestCoastRunner]

That might be hard to do. But yes, I bet he tries.

[On Guard for Thee]

That might be hard to do. But yes, I bet he tries.

I'll throw this up there just in case he wants to have a go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

[bush_cheney2004]

Im waiting for BC for support his claims.

Seriously ? I have to support my claims about the financial performance of widely held XOM (including Canadian labour unions) , a publicly traded corporation and its business sector ? Otay.....

http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/120qpmd.html

[On Guard for Thee]

This is from a 2012 report

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Exxon Mobil reported a quarterly profit of nearly $16 billion Thursday -- the highest ever for a U.S. corporation.

The number beat out the previous quarterly record of $14.83 billion set in the third quarter of 2008, also by Exxon.

[WestCoastRunner]

Seriously ? I have to support my claims about the financial performance of widely held XOM (including Canadian labour unions) , a publicly traded corporation and its business sector ? Otay.....

http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/120qpmd.html

I have lost interest in your stats.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have lost interest in your stats.

You interest or lack thereof has nothing to do with the reality of net profit margins for the oil & gas business sector. It cares not....

[Accountability Now]

This is from a 2012 report

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Exxon Mobil reported a quarterly profit of nearly $16 billion Thursday -- the highest ever for a U.S. corporation.

The number beat out the previous quarterly record of $14.83 billion set in the third quarter of 2008, also by Exxon.

That's great.....but unfortunately one quarter doesn't make a year. In 2013 Apple made the most profit at 37 billion while Exxon made 32.6 billion. I guess that kind takes away from your Exxon claim hey? Lol

Having said that, Exxon would have made more profit if they weren't taxed so high (42% versus 26% for Apple). As per the article:

"Also note that the outfits with the highest tax burdens are the perennially derided oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, with tax rates of 42% and 40%, respectively. This is because they derive a sizable portion of their profits in resource-rich nations that levy exceptionally high taxes on oil and gas developments."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/15/what-americas-most-profitable-companies-pay-in-taxes/

[On Guard for Thee]

That's great.....but unfortunately one quarter doesn't make a year. In 2013 Apple made the most profit at 37 billion while Exxon made 32.6 billion. I guess that kind takes away from your Exxon claim hey? Lol

Having said that, Exxon would have made more profit if they weren't taxed so high (42% versus 26% for Apple). As per the article:

"Also note that the outfits with the highest tax burdens are the perennially derided oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, with tax rates of 42% and 40%, respectively. This is because they derive a sizable portion of their profits in resource-rich nations that levy exceptionally high taxes on oil and gas developments."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/15/what-americas-most-profitable-companies-pay-in-taxes/

Oh well, good for Apple. When I worked for exxon back a few years they set the record for highest profit not only of US companies but on the planet. The point of all this was somebody posting nonsense about oil company not making much profits. Or at least trying to. We all know different.

[Accountability Now]

Oh well, good for Apple. When I worked for exxon back a few years they set the record for highest profit not only of US companies but on the planet. The point of all this was somebody posting nonsense about oil company not making much profits. Or at least trying to. We all know different.

Yes and I trust you also noted that Exxon paid more in taxes than any other company made in profit with Apple being the only exception. Or did you?

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes and I trust you also noted that Exxon paid more in taxes than any other company made in profit with Apple being the only exception. Or did you?

I guess basic math would explain that when you make that much dough you have to pay some taxes.