Do you get the sense that global warming deniers are getting crazier and crazier?
It seems to me like deniers have been getting increasingly crazy. Just as one example, in a recent question about a lack of skepticism from 'skeptics' regarding various stories in the media, our geologist and chemist denier twins managed to cram the word 'left' or 'leftists' into their answers 3 times. Each! Plus one comment about 'socialists'. One of them suggested the media story in question - which had already been proven to be a hoax - was factually true because a lot of people read Anthony Watts' blog, because "it had the ring of truth", and because "Socialist don't exactly have a history of non violent behavior". In other words it didn't matter to him that the story was a proven hoax, because to him for various rather insane reasons, it sounded true.
Apparently all solar energy company employees are 'socialists', socialists are violent, therefore he believed this solar energy company had delivered a death threat even after the story had been debunked. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvLV_T6e9AvjMKg9Y34zS1Xty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100703104839AALwxZF
As I said, this is just one example. It seems like every time I read a denier answer these days, my jaw drops in disbelief. Do you get the sense that global warming deniers are getting crazier and crazier?
2010-07-05T12:39:12Z
Another great example today: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100705115806AAEHjW1&r=w#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX
booM2010-07-05T13:55:23Z
Favorite Answer
Collectively? I'm not sure. From the examples shown in the questions and answers in this section, there are more people now that I would describe as 'skeptics' and fewer that I would describe as 'deniers.' However, the ones I would still label as deniers seem more virulent, and my personal straw poll of questions, answers and participants indicates some new people (or at least new avatars and names) who are asking the same old questions and offering the same old tired responses. I'm not sure I would describe my reaction to some of the stuff posted here as jaw-dropping, but then I'm no scientist. I just look at some of it and go oh geez...then shake my head and move on.
So I'm not sure...there seem to be fewer deniers, but the ones in denial may be far more ostrich-like, perhaps unable to grasp the basics or refusing to address the real issues for one reason or another, hence rather than getting intelligent issues based dialogue and debate, you see all the references to 'leftists,' 'socialists' and all the other flotsam and jetsam of politically charged arguments without much-if any-substance to support them. In other words, the right wing playbook-not that the left is blameless by any means. And I do think there is a sub group of people-primarily the 'newer' participants here-who are just obviously not up to speed on the subject of climate change or what issues have been laid to rest...so you get these ridiculously old, tired falsehoods brought up again and again.
Perhaps the larger issue is your obviously growing frustration with the uneducated questions and responses, which I can understand given your level of participation here in this category and the way you have been targeted and attacked repeatedly as a result-which I have observed for the entire 2 1/2 years I've been here. For me, it's easy to just roll my eyes and ignore the obvious idiocy and find interesting points of discussion in some of the more denial-oriented questions and comments because climate change is not my area of expertise and I make no bones about that, so I'm usually not getting called names or getting targeted like you are constantly...it's like little kids at a swimming pool around here, running up to you and snapping you with a wet towel, and then when you snap back they run to the lifeguard crying and complaining. And you're certainly not the only one that happens to here. I may get a number of thumbs-downs for that comment, but the towel-snappers generally seem to have a hard time with chicken and egg concepts.
The point is, I can't stake any claim to being 100% objective or anything and I do agree that the remaining people in total denial here are getting more shrill, but overall I feel like the quality of the discussion here is improving, people are getting better educated about the issues and talking about them seriously more with less of the oh yeah well you're a communist is what you are type of waste of bandwidth commentary and more useful information on both sides of the issues.
BB deleted his question. Seems to happen when answers presented conflict with denier reality. "Why don't you go live in a yurt while I fly back and forth between LA and NY a few more dozen times this year and we’ll see what happens?" Real helpful suggestion there. Pat's analysis went wrong with the 1/3 - 2/3 thing. In reality, 4/5 of the world lives off grid and without advanced technology. Therefore, 1/5 of the world is causing the problem. Of the 1+ billion people in the developed world, 1/3 of them could drop dead tomorrow and the problem would remain. The bottom line is that the US, which is 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of the energy. He is trying to justify his willful ignorance by transference and blaming others. It's really a microcosm of our societal denial. I will block out anything that conflicts with my established world view and blame you for bringing me contradictory information. It's perverse. Here is an analogy that maybe the reactionary right can understand. We have structural deficit problems in the US. We’ve made commitments for Medicare and Social Security that we will never be able honor because expenditures will always outstrip revenue. The only fix is to make sacrifices now - to cut benefits or raise taxes. Or, as our esteemed German friends have pointed out, to never have let yourself get into the situation in the first place. We’ve done the same thing with the environment. We’ve spent 100 years building our infrastructure and society in such a way that it has locked us into an energy intensive future. I couldn’t live in the woods if I wanted to. I have to live in a dwelling with an occupancy permit, with sewerage, water, heat and electricity - by law - code and zoning. The only way to fix the problem is to make sacrifices now - to cut energy use or make the investment to convert to clean energy. Or, go back in time 35 years to the first energy crisis and do what was promised – cut our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years. Oh well. I wonder, of those 1+ billion, how many are uber consumers who are really, really causing the problem? Or is just living in the developed world enough? I drive a 40mpg car, don't fly, super insulated my house, change all the light bulbs, carefully scrutinize every purchase to avoid non recyclable waste, salvage and store materials for reuse, and joined an organic co-op. Is that enough to make a difference? Personally I don’t think so, but I try to live by example. If everyone did this, including business and government, energy use and waste would drop by ½. Of course, the consumer economy would tank.
They most certainly are... But then I never really had any high expectations for the sanity of the zulu bros. The rest seem to be jumping on the bandwagon, though...
Here's one example: "I read a story that belief in man made global warming was at an all time low down by 20 points and in free fall in the US." Yep... That's right. Global warming can't be real because of an unsubstantiated claim that 'belief' is down 20 points. Are those, like, Nielsen Ratings?
And then there's this [from Phoenix Quill]: "Gotta tell ya Dana."
*crickets*
"I think you're the one in denial." Wow... That's a shocking retort.
"The Religion of AGW is dying in America - and you think the Gospel has reached all but the insane." Yeah, I just heard that our ratings are down 20 points. We gotta (to borrow your word) do something about that. Maybe we should come up with some crazy stories like kids at science fairs, freezing environmentalists, or something... I know - a bomb! That will get people's attention!
"You guys changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change" Now you see? That's either an insultingly obvious lie, or textbook delusion.
"& you think no one notices." I did just notice. You're lying or nuts.
"'Skeptics' become 'Deniers'" It's sad, but that does happen. Sadly, skeptics don't last very long since they either fall into denial or [more often] they realize that it is nearly a scientific certainty that man is warming the Earth.
"and you don't understand this changes AGW from a Scientific Theory to a Religion." Wait, what? Have you suffered any recent head trauma? How does a theory become a religion?
"Talk to me Dana, how long before I'm an Infidel." If AGW was a religion then you already are, whether you are called one, or not. I don't think anyone is even entertaining the idea that you are an AGW Infidel.
"From where I'm sitting it's the Believers who are getting a bit crazy." Where your sitting should be padded for your physical well-being, if you really think that.
I think that people on both sides are getting "crazier and crazier." Despite what side you find yourself on, I think that we can all agree that a cleaner environment is going to be a better environment. Reducing reliance on foreign oil, developing cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels, protecting and restoring natural resources etc. etc. etc... People on both sides of the fence are right on some levels and wrong on others. Creating teams and picking which side your on will only further alienate each group. If we could just take the politics out of it all, and agree that we mostly want the same things, just for different reasons, then real change would begin.