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

[-1=e^ipi]

Care to clarify at all?

Maybe it will help if you can clarify your position. Aren't you saying that you do not believe AGW because you believe that governments can control the weather?

[GostHacked]

Maybe it will help if you can clarify your position. Aren't you saying that you do not believe AGW because you believe that governments can control the weather?

In a nutshell... yes. If not control it, the weather can easily be drastically manipulated. If the storms and extreme weather are caused by weather modification, then yes it puts the whole AGW bit into complete turmoil.

Edited July 21, 2014 by GostHacked

[-1=e^ipi]

In a nutshell... yes. If not control it, the weather can easily be drastically manipulated. If the storms and extreme weather are caused by weather modification, then yes it puts the whole AGW bit into complete turmoil.

Yeah, what you claim is simply not possible. The magnitudes of energy available to humans vs the amount of energy that it would require are too different.

In localized situations and under the right circumstances, can humans cause it to rain when it otherwise wouldn't? Sure.

But weather is not climate and the magnitude between making it rain in one location vs trying to manipulate the global climate to an extent that you counteract AGW from increased CO2 emissions is too different.

Edit: I'll give you an analogy. It's like saying a person can lift a mountain because they can lift a heavy rock.

Edited July 21, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

Yeah, what you claim is simply not possible. The magnitudes of energy available to humans vs the amount of energy that it would require are too different.

Go tell that to the butterflies.

[-1=e^ipi]

Go tell that to the butterflies.

If you are referring to the butterfly effect, chaos theory cannot somehow circumvent the long run global temperature balance to such an extent.

[GostHacked]

Yeah, what you claim is simply not possible. The magnitudes of energy available to humans vs the amount of energy that it would require are too different.

Yes you need some amount of energy, and direct energy type devices can accomplish just that.

In localized situations and under the right circumstances, can humans cause it to rain when it otherwise wouldn't? Sure.

But weather is not climate and the magnitude between making it rain in one location vs trying to manipulate the global climate to an extent that you counteract AGW from increased CO2 emissions is too different.

I did not say anything about climate modification, but if you can manipulate weather on a localized level, and that seems to be happening in many places, that will affect overall climate globally.

You cannot affect one local weather system without affecting near by 'localized' weather systems. We have ONE global weather system. It's all tied in together.

Edit: I'll give you an analogy. It's like saying a person can lift a mountain because they can lift a heavy rock.

You familiar with a dude named Tesla? Might not be able to lift it, but one could move it through vibrational frequencies. I'll give you an analogy, you can hear low bass notes from a car's subwoofer at a long distance. That sound is vibrating on the low frequency range. If you are able to match the natural resonance of a specific object, you can break it. Another analogy, like how a singer can break a wine glass with just using their voice.

Again, I don't expect you to believe me, go look for the into yourself and see if you can counter what I am saying. I was not satisfied with what I was seeing online so I end up doing my own bit of research. And it is 're'search, because the information is already out there, and someone already searched for those answers.

One book I suggest is from the US congressional Research Service. Called 'Weather Modification. Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential. Reprinted in 2004, but was originally printed in 1978.

Edited July 22, 2014 by GostHacked

[Mighty AC]

Ghost do you honestly believe that climate change is being caused by a weather manipulation conspiracy? As mentioned the amount of energy required to change climate systems to the extent experienced would be impossible, plus it would require thousands of people to be in on it and stay quiet. I don't understand how that line of reasoning would resonate with you, in the face of massive evidence and expert opinion.

[GostHacked]

Ghost do you honestly believe that climate change is being caused by a weather manipulation conspiracy? As mentioned the amount of energy required to change climate systems to the extent experienced would be impossible, plus it would require thousands of people to be in on it and stay quiet. I don't understand how that line of reasoning would resonate with you, in the face of massive evidence and expert opinion.

It's not a conspiracy. Weather modification has been going on for 50+ years.

It's also not that much of a secret. http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

And to answer your 'thousands of people working on it'... compartmentalization. That is how the US developed the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan. Groups worked on small portions and only those at the top were aware of what was really going on. You keep your people in the dark, and at the same time keep your enemy in the dark.

[waldo]

Again, I don't expect you to believe me, go look for the into yourself and see if you can counter what I am saying.

per the OP request, this thread is not intended as a platform to "argue" the low(er)-level technical details of positions... as I said, there are a brazillion other MLW threads available, and doing just that.

.

[waldo]

It's not a conspiracy. Weather modification has been going on for 50+ years.

It's also not that much of a secret. http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

your linked reference does not support the extended global reach/extent you're portraying.

in past MLW threads, I've somewhat regularly quoted from the iterative U.S. DOD Quadrennial Defense Reviews that speak to the U.S. DOD's raised concerns, risk assessments, responses in kind, etc., relative to climate change. I've spoken earlier on the more broad conspiracy extensions that your weather modification position relies upon... in this specific military focus, you're presuming that either the U.S. DOD, Pentagon and military branches are putting out false information and budgeting/spending actual monies to support that information/position on climate change..... or..... a global weather modification program exists (to alter climate) and the U.S. DOD, Pentagon, military branch's position on climate change is in response to this same (presumed) weather modification program "they" are actioning.

in any case, again, your linked reference does not support your position:

The term weather-modification may have negative connotations for many people, civilians and military members alike. It is thus important to define the scope to be considered in this paper so that potential critics or proponents of further research have a common basis for discussion.

In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale. In the mildest and least controversial cases it may consist of inducing or suppressing precipitation, clouds, or fog for short times over a small-scale region. Other low-intensity applications might include the alteration and/or use of near space as a medium to enhance communications, disrupt active or passive sensing, or other purposes. In conducting the research for this study, the broadest possible interpretation of weather-modification was initially embraced, so that the widest range of opportunities available for our military in 2025 were thoughtfully considered. However, for several reasons described

below, this paper focuses primarily on localized and short-term forms of weather-modification and how these could be incorporated into war-fighting capability. The primary areas discussed include generation and dissipation of precipitation, clouds, and fog; modification of localized storm systems; and the use of the ionosphere and near space for space control and communications dominance.

Extreme and controversial examples of weather modification—creation of made-to-order weather, large-scale climate modification, creation and/or control (or “steering”) of severe storms, etc.—were researched as part of this study but receive only brief mention here because, in the authors’ judgment, the technical obstacles preventing their application appear insurmountable within 30 years. If this were not the case, such applications would have been included in this report as potential military options, despite their controversial and potentially malevolent nature and their inconsistency with standing UN agreements to which the US is a signatory.

.

Edited July 22, 2014 by waldo

[GostHacked]

per the OP request, this thread is not intended as a platform to "argue" the low(er)-level technical details of positions... as I said, there are a brazillion other MLW threads available, and doing just that.

.

I get it, but as much as I like to try to stay on topic, we get some thread drift. Of all the people in this thread, I already stated my reasons and mindset, but the intent of your OP was quickly lost on other posters.

But you even counter yourself by continuing with the thread drift in your next post. Good job.

Edited July 22, 2014 by GostHacked

[waldo]

I get it, but as much as I like to try to stay on topic, we get some thread drift. Of all the people in this thread, I already stated my reasons and mindset, but the intent of your OP was quickly lost on other posters.

But you even counter yourself by continuing with the thread drift in your next post. Good job.

no - you're doing fine... and again, thanks for being so open in your position. I was referring to the probable outcome to you offering up a platform to the 'pi' guy. I trust this thread can remain 'manifesto free'!

[GostHacked]

no - you're doing fine... and again, thanks for being so open in your position. I was referring to the probable outcome to you offering up a platform to the 'pi' guy. I trust this thread can remain 'manifesto free'!

Well as I said, nothing I can post here would convince him or you of my stance. I tripped down that rabbit hole some years ago, and I am still trying to navigate the tunnels. So many branches.

But even in those other threads, I have personally expressed why I deny this global warming through CO2.

Toxicity and degradation of the oceans, the forests, the air. Oil rigs going down, nuclear plants exploding, trains dumping cargo when they run off the rails. Urban development that impacts the environment's natural ability to counter things like floods. Even small floods are a real pain these days. A forest could use that amount of water. A city, not so much.

The amount of trash we still throw out. A lot of it from days before we understood recycling. And even then it's a joke. Like how a bin in the mall will have three holes in the top. One for paper, one for plastic, the other for cans, all while there is only ONE bag underneath. I've seen a few cases of that. And not even all the types of plastic that are supposedly recyclable are in fact not accepted by some facilities.

Cars spewing carbon monoxide, which is very toxic. The rubber of the tires wearing on the road, the windshield washer fluid spraying. Ever ask where does all that fluid go? Container indicates that this stuff is harmful if swallowed. Billions of cars every year spraying this stuff into the environment. Yeah no impact there at all. Then there is the whole deal with oil changes and properly disposing that stuff. All the cleaning products one used for a car, where does that all go?

Toxicity all around us, and we are worried about it getting a little warmer in the next 50 years. I'll most likely die of some form of cancer caused by something else before then.

I grew up in Sudbury Ontario, breathing good doses of sulfur dioxide on many occasions when the wind was right. The fall out from the INCO Superstack blanketed much of the city and it was a real bitch to breathe at times. It gives you that nice itchy dry feeling in your throat, like a cold does, but much worse. It's terrible. I endured that for close to 30 years. The reason that stack was built in the first place was to distribute the emissions higher, and farther. The lack of vegetation around the city back then make it look like a wasteland. Especially if you were coming in from the west, Espanola, Blind River and Sault Ste. Marie.

Another thing I am discovering is the ship breaking places along India and some other countries coasts. You think they have the environmental standards to properly dispose of toxic materials found on decommissioned ships? You ever see HOW they break them up? That shoreline with those ships is not a place to hang out and get a tan. Well you may get a tan, but it won't be from the sun.

We are making some headway in household cleaning products. Being green though non toxic formulas. But even then much of the products I use are toxic in even small doses. Yet we throw all that down the drain daily. Which ends up in treatment facilities to be recycled back into our drinking and bathing water or simply dumped into our rivers and streams. It's all a cycle, and the more shit we throw into that cycle, the sicker we become.

....

[Mighty AC]

We are making some headway in household cleaning products. Being green though non toxic formulas. But even then much of the products I use are toxic in even small doses. Yet we throw all that down the drain daily. Which ends up in treatment facilities to be recycled back into our drinking and bathing water or simply dumped into our rivers and streams. It's all a cycle, and the more shit we throw into that cycle, the sicker we become.

Off topic but, the tonnes upon tonnes of toxic solid sludge from sewage treatment plants is often spread on farm land. It has to go somewhere and so we feed some of it back to ourselves. Here is a link to a great, streamable National Film Board doc on the subject.

[GostHacked]

Off topic but, the tonnes upon tonnes of toxic solid sludge from sewage treatment plants is often spread on farm land. It has to go somewhere and so we feed some of it back to ourselves. Here is a link to a great, streamable National Film Board doc on the subject.

Everything you dump down the drain goes somewhere. And as you said, back into yourself. Think about what that really means.

[Mighty AC]

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

A great read indeed! Your referenced article completely dissects and analyzes my frustration with far to many conservatives on far too many topics. It baffles me that so many intelligent, educated right leaning individuals can so easily dismiss facts, evidence and logic in favour of their preferred ideology. Like the author I too thought that these cons simply must not have been exposed to the evidence, yet it turns out they have but still choose ignore it.

I also assumed that this ideological, willful, ignorance would be common to all groups and that my frustration with cons would be just a point of view issue. However, the phenomenon is primarily a conservative problem that actually intensifies with education. It's unbelievable. How do you debate issues with a group that simply ignores the evidence they don't like?

It does mention that cons do not tend to become ideological, evaders of evidence until they learn a little about politics. That makes sense....but I want to know how this came to be. When did conservatives break with reality in favour of their preferred beliefs? I wonder if it's caused by age. At some point, as we age, people begin to resist change, dig in our heals and develop sizable ruts. Can this phenomenon be at least partially explained by the demographics of left versus right support?

http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/the_republican_brain%3A_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality?page=0%2C0

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. Its a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientistsand indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

Indeed, the rapidly growing social scientific literature on the resistance to global warming (see for examples here and here) says so pretty unequivocally. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as welland are confident they dont need any more information on the issue.

Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. I n a recent surveyby Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselvesthey considered themselves very well-informed about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they do not need any more information to make up their minds on the issue.

[TimG]

However, the phenomenon is primarily a conservative problem that actually intensifies with education.

Complete BS. Liberals completely reject the science when it comes to GMOs or Nuclear power and are completely irrational religious zealots when it comes to things like organic food or recycling. The only reason you perceive these traits to be more common among conservatives is you lack any ability to critically analyze views that you happen to sympathize with.

Lastly, the entire premise of this bogus analysis is that conservatives are necessarily wrong on climate change. This position is untenable given the failure of climate models to predict the last 10 years. No matter what you would like to believe you cannot say that the climate skeptic position is necessarily wrong. The fact that more informed conservatives are more likely to be skeptics suggests that the skeptic position is one that one arrives at after rationally analyzing the evidence as opposed to reacting based on ideological preferences. But I realize that you are probably too blinded by your own ideology to understand this connection.

Edited July 22, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

This position is untenable given the failure of climate models to predict the last 10 years.

enter the point about deniers/fake-skeptics forever (purposely) touting known falsehoods; in this case short-term trending results... those shorter time periods that are particularly subject to natural variability (noise) influences. And here you've actually gone even shorter... 10 years now, rather than the typical cherry-picked alignment with the most significant 97/98 warm phase of the ENSO cyle. Of course, you know, you absolutely know, the last 10 years has had a disportionate number of cooler La Nina phases of ENSO. Of course, over proper longer term trending intervals, the respective warmer versus cooler natural cycle noise is canceled out.

[waldo]

Lastly, the entire premise of this bogus analysis is that conservatives are necessarily wrong on climate change.

talking about blinded, as in yours! The analysis doesn't speak to conservatives proper; rather, the analysis speaks to conservatives who hold denial/fake-skeptic positions with, in turn, the subset distinction between educated versus less educated conservatives who hold denial/fake-skeptic positions.

No matter what you would like to believe you cannot say that the climate skeptic position is necessarily wrong. The fact that more informed conservatives are more likely to be skeptics suggests that the skeptic position is one that one arrives at after rationally analyzing the evidence as opposed to reacting based on ideological preferences. But I realize that you are probably too blinded by your own ideology to understand this connection.

the 'climate skeptic' position is the norm position; i.e., all scientists hold a skeptical predispostion... it's the nature of science. You clearly confuse the skeptic versus fake-skeptic/denial labeling.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes you need some amount of energy, and direct energy type devices can accomplish just that.

A direct energy device isn't a source of energy. Where is all this energy coming from to do what you claim?

I did not say anything about climate modification, but if you can manipulate weather on a localized level, and that seems to be happening in many places, that will affect overall climate globally.

No, localized weather is not global climate. In the long run the Earth will approach an equilibrium where radiation coming from the sun will equal radiation the Earth radiates into outer space. The hotter the Earth, the more energy it radiates. In order to change long run global temperatures you need to change this balance (examples: increasing greenhouse gases will re-absorb some of the energy the Earth radiates to space, changing the Earth's albedo by removing glaciers or reforesting an area would change the global temperature, building a giant space mirror to reflect radiation away from the Earth would affect global temperature, etc.).

You familiar with a dude named Tesla? Might not be able to lift it, but one could move it through vibrational frequencies.

Yes, I have a background in physics.

You seem to be under the impression that physics = magic and that someone can just wave a magic wand and do whatever they want. Physics has to follow the laws that govern the universe.

With respect to resonant frequencies, yes they exist; but I'm not sure how relevant it is when discussing weather systems. You still have to satisfy conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, etc. Again, you can't just wave a magic wand and do whatever you want.

[-1=e^ipi]

all scientists hold a skeptical predispostion...

Nonsense, I personally know many scientists that do not respect the scientific method and do not approach things with skepticism. There are even some famous examples such as Robert Milikan's Nobel Prize.

[TimG]

Nonsense, I personally know many scientists that do not respect the scientific method and do not approach things with skepticism.

Add to that the pressure to conform politically created by a desire for tenure.

[Bonam]

If you are referring to your claims of some secret government organization being able to control the global weather (please tell me if I misunderstand), that easily shown to be ridiculous if you just compare the available energy that people have access to and the amount of energy that would be required to do such a thing.

As a simply order of magnitude comparison:

Global Power Production is 474 EJ per Year.

Total Solar Energy that hits Earth is 3,850,000 EJ per Year.

Even if humans could harness all of the wind on the planet, we are only looked at about 7889 EJ per Year.

While I agree with you that the kind of "weather control" that Gost is talking about is not happening, your energy argument is not a good refutation. In fact, weather control is almost certainly technologically and physically possible, and without expending amounts of energy comparable to that which the Earth absorbs from the Sun.

There are many ways to modify weather using passive devices that do not require us to expend energy over time (only in their initial construction/deployment/maintenance). And there are ways to modify weather by actually extracting energy from the system. And one can modify the weather by expending relatively small amounts of energy to disrupt systems, to tap existing sources of energy that are otherwise not being utilized, etc. In fact there are countless physical examples of systems that allow you to spend a small amount of energy in order to release a far larger amount of energy in return, that was previously locked in some form (chemical or nuclear bonds, gravitational potential energy, etc).

For specific examples, consider the weather modification that occurs when one builds a large set of wind turbines. The wind patterns are modified, and (useful electrical) energy is generated as a result, rather than expended. Or consider just building a gigantic wall that interrupts the jet stream or ocean current, that would have huge effects on weather while being entirely passive. Or consider some of the ideas proposed in the context of terraforming: a set of orbital mirrors or sun shades can be used to heat/cool a planet, where there is no continuous energy expenditure (other than that which is being radiated anyway by a star, being redirected to where you want), only the original setup cost. Similarly with thermal boreholes, which can be used to release large amounts of heat from the mantle/core of a planet, with the only relevant energy cost being drilling the hole. Or consider simply planting a biological organism that then spreads and grows, converting atmospheric CO2 to oxygen and modifying the climate thereby. Back to terraforming; no one ever proposed heating up Mars by building a bunch of giant nuclear reactors and radiators and supplying all the needed energy to heat the planet directly. Rather, one spends small amounts of energy to harness or modify the much larger energy flows that already exist in nature, such as solar radiation, wind patterns, radioactive heating of planetary cores, etc.

I expect that while "weather control" is a little used field of science/technology at this moment, that it will become increasingly prevalent over the coming several decades, and that governments will likely take steps to modify the weather to dissipate harmful storms, prevent droughts, maintain needed snowpack levels, etc. How much energy do you need to dissipate a hurricane? Certainly not as much energy as is stored in the kinetic motion of all the associated mass of air. Rather you just need to cause a relatively small perturbation that propagates and causes some kind of destructive interference, or tilts the balance in favor of the existing dissipative effects. How much energy do you need to prevent a volcanic eruption? Certainly not as much as is associated with all the heat of the magma in the magma dome, you just need the technology to drill and maintain a pipe and valve that will let the magma slowly pour out in a controlled fashion.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Bonam

[waldo]

Nonsense, I personally know many scientists that do not respect the scientific method and do not approach things with skepticism. There are even some famous examples such as Robert Milikan's Nobel Prize.

the context, as stated, was the norm position... try reading before applying your typical anal perusal in attempts to apply your latest 'gotcha'. Carry on.

[waldo]

Add to that the pressure to conform politically created by a desire for tenure.

considering you've repeatedly disparaged scientists, at large... that you've quite recently made a grandiose statement where you advise you don't trust scientists, at large... enter the point about deniers/fake-skeptics repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims in attempts to broadly tarnish the reputation, standing and positions of legitimate scientists, most notably those not predisposed to presenting their so-called "science" from the isolated confines of denialist blogs.