Sigh, another in a long line of “trying to understand” the motivations and reasoning for people who disagree with them, but in reality are likely more informed than them.
I don’t have much to say about this ugliness, but I’ll let their writing speak for itself.
Abstract
Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States. We estimate that 14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change. This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high. Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy, and income. The analysis reveals how a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science, in general. Donald Trump was the strongest influencer in this network, followed by conservative media outlets and right-wing activists. As a form of knowledge vulnerability, climate denialism renders communities unprepared to take steps to increase resilience. As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns.
Introduction
Climate change denialism persists in the United States, with estimates ranging from 12% to 26% of the U.S. population1,2. It is more pronounced in some states and regions3. Reasons for this denialism are multifaceted: Political affiliation and ideology, income, education, and exposure to extreme weather events are all important factors4,5,6. Denialism is more prevalent where local economies are highly dependent on fossil fuels7, in rural communities, and in populations where mistrust in science is pronounced8,9. Social media reaches millions of users, providing a key mechanism for influencers to spread misinformation10. The ability of social media to influence and harden attitudes was apparent in the response to COVID-19 vaccines11.
Understanding how and why climate change opinion varies geographically and documenting it at an actionable scale is crucial for communication campaigns, outreach, and other interventions12,13. Most estimates of the extent and geographic configuration of climate change denialism rely primarily on national surveys, with the Yale Climate Opinion Survey being the only dataset that provides estimates at the state and county levels for the entire U.S.3. These survey efforts, however, are time-intensive and expensive and are therefore destined to cover short time spans and, often, limited geographic extent. The Yale Survey combines data from more than 2500 national surveys and uses multinomial regression modeling to downscale estimates to subnational levels. Independent representative surveys conducted in states and metropolitan areas validate the predictions from the Yale Survey models3.
Mining social media data (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, and X, formerly Twitter) is a tantalizing alternative to survey-based approaches14,15. X is a social media platform with an extensive data repository. By adjusting for the skew toward certain demographic groups in users, data from this platform is useful for estimating public views on an array of topics, such as politics, social issues, and COVID-19 vaccination rates16,17. Data from Twitter has also been used in predictive modeling of election outcomes18. Account holders can misuse it to oppose scientific knowledge and spread misinformation19.
This study used Twitter data (2017–2019) to: (i) estimate the prevalence of climate change denialism at the state and county levels; (ii) identify typical profiles of climate change deniers; (iii) understand how social media promulgates climate change denialism through key influencers; and (iv) determine how world events are leveraged to promulgate attitudes about climate change.
We used a Deep Learning text recognition model to classify 7.4 million geocoded tweets containing keywords related to climate change. Posted by 1.3 million unique users in the U.S., these tweets were collected between September 2017 and May 2019 (see Online Methods S1). We classified these tweets about climate change into ‘for’ (belief) and ‘against’ (denial). Our analysis resulted in a profile of climate change deniers at the county level, provided insight into the networks of social media figures influential in promoting climate change denial, and generated insight into how these influencers use current events to foster this denial.
After confirming the validity of using social media data instead of information collected through surveys to capture public opinion on climate change at policy-relevant geographical scales, we found that denialism clusters in particular regions (and counties) of the country and amongst certain socio-demographic groups. Our analysis reveals how politicians, media figures, and conservative activists promulgated misinformation in the Twittersphere. It maps out how denialists and climate change believers have formed mostly separate Twitter communities, creating echo chambers. Such information provides a basis for developing strategies to counter this knowledge vulnerability and reduce the spread of mis- or disinformation by targeting the communities most at risk of not adopting measaures to increase resilience to the effects of climate change.
Results
Where in the U.S. is climate change denial prevalent?
Our study found that 14.8% of Americans deny that climate change is real (Fig. 1A), a percentage consistent with previous national studies (Fig. S4). Using geolocation information, we determined that denialism is highest in the Central part of the U.S. and in the South, with more than 20% of the populations of OK, MS, AL, and ND consisting of deniers. Along the West and East Coasts and New England, belief in climate change is highest. However, climate change denial varies substantially within states, often clustering in geographic swaths across multiple counties (Fig. 1B). For example, in Shasta County, California climate change denial is as high as 52%; yet overall less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change. Similarly, the average percentage of deniers is 21% in Texas, but at the county-level this ranges from 13% in Travis County to 67% in Hockley County.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6
The full study can be found here.
H/T mark-blr
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”The social anatomy of climate change denial””?
Sounds very much like Lewandowsky etc. to me. And not to be outdone
“”We used a Deep Learning text recognition model””
How fitting(sic)
The authors are at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. If they had an inkling to give even a hint of something in opposition to the progressive agenda, they would be fired and blackballed. There’s that.
At some point, progs will notice that the “carbon footprint” of their athletic league is increasing as conference rivals expand to both coasts. They will also notice that diversity of their national championship team is lacking. At a school that annually spends over $18 million on DEI, the question will become whether that payoff is sufficient.
Even though I’m a UM engineering graduate (’59EE), I agree with your comments. I stopped donated to the UM in the early ’90s because they were so lefty and off the rails even then. The engineering magazine they send me is very ‘slick’ and full of their efforts to save us from climate change, especially with their DEI and ESG profs and students. My 87yo brain may be failing me, but it seems to me earlier studies similar to this showed that engineers (especially older ones) and meteorologists tended to be in the climate change ‘doubter’ category if not the ‘denialist’ group. (At least those who were not receiving government grants or subsidies.)
i am a 75-year-old retired ME and I don’t doubt for a minute that climate changes – it always has and always will. So, you Alarmists, suck it up and get used to it.
Leaving aside the uncertainty in the temperature record of the past few hundred years, which is rather high, temperature changes of that order may well reasonably not be any indication of changing climate. If temperatures, and various other weather aspects, go through cycles, even though those cycles are not exceedingly even, then the only meaningful climate changes might be the glacial, inter-glacial cycles. The lesser events don’t really have significant consequences.
not on a global scale, that is
Snapping on the heels of you and Gregory, in terms of age. We have seen the climate change.
My suspicion, about this ‘research’, is how they define climate change and interpret the results. If asked, do we believe in climate change, we’d respond certainly, and we’ve seen it. But if asked, do we believe in the catastrophic predictions and is totally man made, we’d tell them to shove it.
That is where my concern lies. The activists, now class, the crisis/emergency as climate change, whereas before ‘climate change’ was used as a euphemism for ‘global warming’.
So, they subvert a genuine question, ‘do you believe in climate change?’ as an affirmation, of climate crisis/emergency.
And like both of you, my background was engineering.
The authors ticked a box and scored the dosh
I was admitted to the U of M Business School in 1977 with a nice letter. In Jul of that year, one month before I was to start the fall semester, they sent me another letter saying they were revoking my admission because “I didn’t meet their diversity profile.” despite the fact that a lot of my genealogy were U of M graduates, including my grandmother, both grandfathers, father, uncles, etc.
So, the administration of the university are as bad as anybody in the world with regard to bigotry and racism and this goes back to the mid 1970s. I suspect it goes back further.
Should’ve just turned up with the first letter and said you never received any other letters! Could’ve been interesting.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/17/we-the-arbiters-of-truth-are-working-really-really-hard-to-understand-those-stupid-lying-climate-denier-liars/#comment-3868892
Without much attention
Covid showed the way legislate today scrutinise tomorrow
In the absence of real intelligence, use the artificial one.
Trying to accurately allocate beliefs as a percentage of the population on the basis of ‘social media’ has to be considered a fools errand.
Having thought about this for another 5 seconds, I think the intent is to demoralize alarmism skeptics by publishing a low ball estimate.
When it comes to matters climate, thinking is not approved….
The study throws critical thinking out the window when it relies on A.i. without question. In a simply test to see if A.i. had any intelligence at all, I recently asked it to describe the roles of the two most prominent people and one environmental group who all supposedly exposed the ‘industry corruption of skeptic climate scientists.’ It came back with the declaration that one of them* had won a Pulitzer Prize, the highest achievement to honor American journalists. As I detailed afterward here, that person never won a Pulitzer, thus all that followed from that person after his false declaration was highly suspect. (*FYI, the other person has every appearance of having fabricated her stories of how she ever became involved in the climate issue. Don’t get me started on the fatal faults of the enviro group.)
Perhaps the estimate is close for those who dare to speak up but a multiple of that number are the “silent majority”.
I’m thinking the ‘silent majority’ has to be above 50%, otherwise we’d already be way up Sheet’s Creek without a paddle by now.
the creek’s water level seeks to be getting too low to use a paddle in many places
Yes, it’s been piling up in there for some years now!
The UK, was built on it. Alas, us poor plebs, have to live on it.
Or they simply dare not admit to the real numbers in case their followers realise how much ground they’ve lost and are still losing.
You say a fool’s errand, they call it science!
Although I suppose that if they are using AI then this is Artificial Science because that’s all they’ve got!
Artificial Social Science….
How much lower on the not-science ladder can you get !!
Are they assuming that all cohorts use social media with the same frequency?
They don’t realize that what they are actually measuring is the fraction of their sample that think for themselves VS those who just accept the consensus (argument from authority) fallacious climate change propaganda. The results most likely would be similar if you looked at belief in extraterrestrial visitors or in ghosts. In any case social media is the last place one should expect to find the scientifically literate and critical thinkers.
Faith requires belief, science requires data and evidence. These Climate Crisis Cult members are showing it is indeed a religion, more than willing to treat those they perceive as unbelievers, heretics or apostates to severe unpleasantness.
The Chemist,
That was a neat comment. More comments ahead, please?
Geoff S (geochemist)
They are hell bent on making reason and doubt and skepticism seem pathological, and in need of reeducation, and even punishment. Orwellian. And I bet they all use FF every day, of course!
You must…. Believe…
don’t forget to clap
In modern society, it’s impossible not to use fossil fuels or the products of fossil fuels every day.
I’m pretty sure they didn’t write this nonsense on slate
The modus operandi of the left has always been to disallow opposition to whatever they are pushing.
Either by making disagreement with them explicitly illegal, or by declaring that only the insane would disagree with them and institutionalizing their opponents.
” And I bet they all use FF every day, of course!”
_______________________________________
Very difficult not to as Greta finds out:
Friday Funny: Greta Thunberg’s perfect petroleum-free world
Very funny if you haven’t read it.
Yes they all use fossil fuels every day of their lives because they have to,
but they don’t have to own a car. I wonder how many of them actually use
public transportation, don’t eat meat, turn their thermostats down re-cycle
grocery bags etc.
Besides all that, Instead of throwing soup on Whistler’s mother maybe they
should get some sewage trucks and decorate DeCaprio’s yacht and the
mansions owned by the big kahunas of the climate mob.
Just had a shufty at the link, which reminded me, somewhere on the net, there is a very old picture (over 100 y/o), which has an image of several women working in a rural setting, and one of them is a dead ringer for Greta!
Maybe, she’s been reincarnated, and is trying to get back to the good old days.
I don’t think there is reincarnation but there is definitely cloning about. Take for example all the silly cloned arguments that appear on synch on TV! There is no lie like a coordinated, cloned lie.
True earth-saving climate enthusiasts should give up plastic clothing and insulation and rip the skins off some animals to create a true natural, renewable style. I hear poley bear skins are really warm, but you need wolverine fur for the face fringe. Ice doesn’t stick to it and there is a lot more of that coming.
That can lead one to break out into random verses of Oklahoma
Doubt and skepticism are the foundation of scientific method.
They probably go walking around saying ‘resistance is futile’.
“By looking at tweets we….”
SCIENCE!
That’s what I wondered.
How in any way could this piece of contrived garbage EVER be remotely called “science”.
How can it ever come under the heading “scientific reports”..
We classified these tweets about climate change into ‘for’ (belief) and ‘against’ (denial).
So no attempt at any level of sophistication. Everybody is either “for” or “against” “climate change”.
Wokeist monochrome
fer us or agin us! ya gotta be 1 or the other!
and they think they’re the smart ones
Once again, “climate denialism” is the new term, based on “holocaust denialism”, making AGW skeptics really bad people.
well, look at the analogy- burning people and boiling the planet- it’s obvious! /sarc
AGW skeptics are stupid people
CAGW skeptics are smart people
Going out of your way to insult people who would otherwise be your allies is not smart.
The AGW deniers make it nearly impossible for smarter conservatives to refute CAGW.
They do not deserve any respect.
They are the climate equivalent of RINO Republicans.
No science knowledge.
No political skills.
Losers and boozers.
It’s about time someone told them.
Dickie bot with another twisted and deranged rant
AND NO EVIDENCE.
And your evidence is what? A plasticine model?
What percentage of climate change from the last 150 years do you attribute to AGW? Specifically, what percentage is from using fossil fuels?
Please disregard any effects from land use changes and the urban heat island effect because there is not as yet a full on war against these. (But they are brewing.)
Almost no AGW through 1975
An unknown percentage, but perhaps a majority, after 1975
SO2 increases from 1940 to 1980 caused cooling
Warning partially caused by’
SO2 decreases after 1980
CO2 increases after 1975 (Not much CO2 change from 1940 to 1975)
I can’t disregard obvious land use / economic growth effects such as rising UHI
Also biased surface temperature measurements and statistics (aka fake warming) … I assume UAH is okay after 1979
The correct answer is no one knows the percentages, but the evidence of manmade warming is stronger than the evidence of natural warming.
But natural changes in cloudiness are still a mystery.
The bottom line is global warming is good news, so it barely matters what caused it. It only matters if you can convince people that good climate changes (warmer) are bad news.
[snip harassment]
AGW-cultists, like dickie-bot.. are the dumbest of them all !
Still waiting for evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere.
You do know there is no evidence of CO2 based atmospheric warming in the whole of the satellite temperature data, don’t you. !
I know you arer a big dummy.
That makes me smart
[snip harassment]
The ones who think that AGW skeptics are stupid do so because they are science deniers.
Took the words from my fingers….
That would make nearly 100% of climate scientists in the past century science deniers too.
But I suppose you are smarter than them?
That is incorrect. Produce evidence to support you ridiculous assertion.
[snip harassment]
How much has anthropogenic co2 warmed the planet over and above nature?
I look at the pattern in some areas well known to me and the results run counter to the paper’s claims. Thus, color me very skeptical about this being about anything real at all.
Who knows how many skeptics there are? AI? Don’t make me laugh.
You are skeptical about skeptics.
I am skeptical about the UK spelling of “sceptics”, which I interpret as a symptom of a failing society.
They think a car has a bonnet, boot, chubby box, accumulator, nave plates, wings and a dynamo.
Those people should learn how to speak English
And get rid of King Chuckles — no one needs a King.
Floyd R. Turbo
“”I am skeptical about the UK spelling of “sceptics””
So, you are sceptical of English English
And yet you speak a 17th century derivative where people slay each other
Each to his own
I bought a Stradivarius violin at a pawn shop. The logo was small. When I got it hom and used a magnifying glass, it said
“Stratiblarius”, who must have been a cousin.
Do you want to buy it?
[snip harassment]
It is the English language.. co-opted and brutalised by Americans…. like Mann twists data.
‘Skeptic’ is American, ‘sceptic’ is English. The sooner you accept that these are two different languages with only a few words in common, the better we’ll all be. When I was a kid in junior school I didn’t know any better and spelt some words in American rather than English which I got rapped over the knuckles for. I mean literally – with a ruler, I couldn’t hold a pen for the rest of the day, let alone write anything. Well that taught me a lesson and I’ve been very particular to try and avoid American in favour of English most of the time, although I occasionally write in American if there is a specific point I need to get across to US readers – always try and use the most appropriate language where possible.
Plus the use of ‘nave plate’ is so old fashioned and outdated you might as well have mentioned ‘horseless carriages’ – I’d never heard of the term. Cubby boxes and the similar chubby boxes were a new one on me as well; a recent(ish) development that, since I’ve never driven a car with one in, I’d not heard of. As to the rest, we rarely comment on the many deficiencies of the American system, so it would be prudent not to comment on any deficiencies in the British system, ok?
Just to correct you Richard, we invented the English language, you lot exported it and corrupted it. Is it our fault, you can’t spell?
UK is sliding downhill faster than the US.
You have King Chuckles and Richi “poison” Sunak
We have Joe Bribe’em and Kamala “word salad” Harris.
It’s a race to the bottom.
Climate always changes. It is not likely caused by man made CO2. What is the question?
Climate has never not been changing.
manmade CO2 always changes the climate
Not much, and in a beneficial way
A link to some proof that your hypothesis that manmade CO2 always changes the climate would be useful, Richard.
But warming, CO2 generated or otherwise, is beneficial, as is more CO2 from any source.
How about nearly 100% of climate scientists over the past century, including almost every skeptic, such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, or is not strong enough AGW support for you?
Quite an ego you must have to believe you are smarter than all these scientists.
I doubt if you even know what AGW includes. It is MORE than just manmade CO2 emissions. But I suppose you already know everything about climate science?
ROFLMAO..
There goes dickie-bot down the ANTI-science consensus route..
I guess he does that because he knows he has no actual real evidence.
“AGW” or “global warming” is considered by 110% of people to mean warming by human released CO2.
As you keep showing…. there is no evidence that is happening.
I think a good argument could be made that landscape changes are the largest human caused weather changers but it seem unlikely that any particular area has a global effect. No, I can’t go out and make adequate measurements to support the idea but can read about the many know effects of landscape changes.
How is the ocean landscape changing?
That’s 71% of the surface area
No evidence translates to a theory which reduces AGW to a belief system or as many say a religion. AGW believers also choose to ignore evidence that CO2 is not pushing temperature around which is intellectually dishonest.
AGW has plenty of evidence. It is natural warming that lacks evidence after 1975
Words are cheap. Produce evidence.
[snip harassment]
[snip harassment]
BeNasty2000 remains permanently stuck on stupid.
[snip harassment]
But I suppose you already know everything about climate science?
To clarify: You don’t ! 😀
Hairy Krishna made a joke!
Almost funny
[snip harassment]
Opinions are not data – provide actual data or give up. It does not matter whose opinions you throw into the mix, if they are not backed up by data then they are all equally worthless, I’m afraid.
I think you should consider what you’ve just said, and take your own advice.
Another AGW denier who thinks he knows more than almost 100% of climate scientists in the past century.
Which of those 100% skeptics believes that warming is due to CO2 radiation in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Not the Wijngaarden & Happer model. Any warming effect due to CO2 (which W&H showed is next to nothing) is due to increased thermal resistance not radiation. Heat flux in the troposphere is entirely convective and radiative cooling in the stratosphere.
Heat or energy flux in the troposphere is by several methods, not just convection and radiation.
Conduction is another , but a big one is bulk air movement, which is of course controlled by temperature, density and pressure differences.
Sure, but conduction plays a small role compared to convection and radiation.
The downwelling back radiation is measured 365 days a year. Only fools claim it does not exist. It is even possible to measure in a back yard at night with a handheld instrument. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. did that about ten years ago.
Warming by downwelling violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Downwelling radiation is not heat which is the instantaeous flow of energy from hot to cold. Warming of a warm earth by a cold atmosphere also has probems with the Planck function. How do you get around these violations?
You say that Lindzen and Happer believe that warming is due to CO2 radiation. What reference are you looking at? Certainly not Happer who said “Greenhouse gases warm the surface because they increase the “thermal resistance” of the atmosphere to the vertical flow of energy from the solar-heated surface to space.” and “Greenhouse gases are the heat exchanger which allows the atmospheric heat engine to dump waste heat into cold space. (W&H, 2023).
[snip harassment]
Nearly 100% of climate ”scientists” base their belief on the hypothesis of one or two people. How is that proof?
No one cares about that. That is not the argument.
The first estimate of the ECS of CO2 was in 1896.
There have been 127 years for scientists to refute the claim.
So far all they have accomplished is to say the 1896 ECS of CO2 estimate was too high.
AGW has not been refuted in 127 years. Maybe it has withstood the test of time.
Of course the AGW deniers, all pretend scientists, think they know better.
Evidence for AGW has not been produced. But contrary evidence has been produced.
[snip harassment]
Dear me, Richard, who stole your scone today?
It is a perfectly honest request. As a professional seaman I don’t often believe opinions, I look for proof, and so far as I can find the hypothesis of manmade climate change due to the increase in CO2 is not yet even a theory.
You’ve been out to sea for too long
[snip harassment]
Please explain exactly how that happens.
“manmade CO2 always changes the climate”
And your scientific evidence is ?????
Still hiding somewhere??
You seek it high , you seek it low.
…. that dastardly elusive evidence…
Overdose of stupid pills today?
[snip harassment]
By what mechanism?
CO2 deflects some upwelling radiation back down to the ground / ocean. That reduces the net flow of radiation toward the infinite heat sink of space. Impedes earth’s ability to cool itself.
Heat cannot flow from cold to hot (2nd Law) but radiation can. Radiation is not heat! (Physics 101)
[snip harassment]
How does CO2 deflect radiation from the warm earth?
How much? if you cannot tell me, stop saying it because it is a meaningless statement.
The lab measurement suggests small +0.7 degrees C. warming for CO2 x 2
There is no evidence that CO2 in the outside air behaves differently than CO2 in the inside lab air.
It is expected that a water vapor positive feedback will amplify that CO2 warming, but that positive feedback must have limits, or we would not be alive to debate it.
One possibility is more water vapor in the troposphere causes a more clouds negative feedback, which limits the positive WV feedback
[snip harassment]
You are a DEFINITION DENIER !
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.
With a definition wordsmithed like that, they’ve got the “natural warming” folks firmly placed in the “denier” camp.
I wonder what they call climate change that isn’t caused by human activity? Or are they denying there was climate change before there were people that they could pin the blame?
There was 100% natural climate change for 4.5 billion years, but Mr. Natural died in 1975 and made Mr. Manmade the new boss.
What a load of anti-science AGW-cultist nonsense and garbage !!
It’s called a joke
Go out and buy a sense of humor.
[snip harassment]
R. Crumb’s version, or Mental as Anything’s?
The only atmospheric warming in 45 years of satellite data…
… has been TOTALLY NATURAL.
Do you still DENY this fact ?
maybe but there is no compelling evidence either way.
Compelling evidence that in the UAH atmospheric data, the only warming is from El Nino events.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any CO2 based warming despite the large enhancement of atmospheric CO2 over that period.
El Nino Nutters always ignore the cooling La Ninas.
And they can never explain why EL Ninos in the 1940 to 1975 period would cause global cooling while they would cause global warming after 1975. True Nutters.
[snip harassment]
[snip harassment]
There’s little evidence any of the post 1975 warming was natural because so little is known about changes in global average cloudiness. However, I do deny that you have a functioning brain.
[snip harassment]
Moron. 100% natural climate cycles have never stopped – they continue to this day. The human-caused signal is so small as to be unnoticeable.
Will you just stop mindlessly regurgitating alarmist propaganda please?
Natural cycles do not explain a
+1 DEGREE C. WARMING from 1975 through 2023, which would require completely ignoring the AGW of CO2 increases, SO2 decreases, and UHI increases.
You need to be sedated.
[snip harassment]
[snip harassment]
So there is no natural climate change, according to the UNFCCC? Like, the dodo bird, natural climate change is extinct, a victim of human activities?
Well, their Artificial Intelligence was obviously not intelligent enough to figure out the glaringly obvious reason for climate change skepticism: knowledgeability.
On the one side you can say: what a useless tool. On the other hand we can conclude there is nothing to fear from AI. It is just a useless, but hyped-up toy for mediocre people.
AI. Fast, sophisticated pattern matching
Exactly. If it was actually AI it would program itself and then we would “really” be in trouble
“On the other hand we can conclude there is nothing to fear from AI.”
We should, however, be very aware of the huge damage that could be inflicted by the misuses of AI.
“We estimate that 14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change.”
Heathens- should be burned at the stake! 🙂
“This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high.”
And luckily, in elite Wokeachusetts- only a dozen or so such heathens. /sarc
“The analysis reveals how a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science, in general.”
uh, oh- they’re on to us- our coordinated conspiracy! /sarc
“As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns.”
Yes, flag their accounts and off with their heads! /sarc
Stake? Better not be a wooden one, that’ll release far too much CO2 – right then, let’s have a re-usable concrete post instead!
CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
Demonization of CO2 by climate alarmists is the problem. Skeptics are right to be skeptical of all the unsubstantiated assertions made by climate alarmists.
Climate alarmists assume there is a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather and climate, when no connection has ever been established.
Climate alarmists see what they want/expect to see when it comes to the Earth’s weather and climate. They do not see that their connection of CO2 to something bad for the climate has no basis in fact.
They cannot understand why skeptics are not as delusional as they are.
Climate Alarmists live in a False Reality. There is no evidence this reality exists. It exists only in the minds of climate alarmists.
In 1896 Swedish scientist Svante August Ar-
rhenius (1859–1927), 1903 Nobel Prize winner in
chemistry, was aware that atmospheric concen-
trations of CO2 (and other gases) had an effect
on ground level temperatures; and he formulated
a “greenhouse law for CO2”, Were Arrhenius
alive, the motivations for his study and the precise
values of physical constants used in his models
might change, but his greenhouse law remains
intact today.
Martin E. Walter, “Earthquakes and Weatherquakes: Mathematics and Climate Change”, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 57, Number 10, p. 1278 (November 2010).
Since Glorious Greta is such an effective spokesperson on the subject, its possible that there’s something about Swedish culture and climate anxiety.
This is where it all comes from. It’s mathematics. . Prof. Walter came to CU in 1973, bought a ten acre farm, proved theorems, built a house, and taught math until the present day. He also currently sits on the Executive Committee of the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club and is a co-founder of Ancient Forest Rescue.
The link doesn’t work, but I would be interested in seeing the mathematical formula for his “greenhouse law”. Never heard of it.
“his greenhouse law remains
intact today.
Martin E. Walter, “Earthquakes and Weatherquakes: Mathematics and Climate Change”, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 57, Number 10, p. 1278 (November 2010).”
1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann, Beer-Lambert, Kirchhoff’s… these are laws of physics that define the greenhouse effect, and as such all have mathematical statements.
Arrhenius couldn’t even balance the dimensions in his equations. !
Anything else was pure speculation built on a totally erroneous understanding of atmospheric energy transfer.
And CO2 water/forcing remains pure speculations…. a mathematic calculation based only of radiative principles.
The atmosphere does not transfer energy just as radiation.
And this is exactly why the “greenhouse effect” fails a complete physics analysis. It ignores evaporation, convection and conduction.
typo…
And CO2 water/forcing -> and CO2 warming/forcing remain pure speculation….
The concepts of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity are pseudoscientific nonsense that are derived from an oversimplified one dimensional equilibrium or steady state climate model.
The basic model was first introduced by Arrhenius in 1896.
He used a uniform air column with a single start temperature (288 K).
This was illuminated by a fixed 24 hour average solar flux.
The surface was a partially reflective blackbody with zero heat capacity.
When the CO2 concentration was increased, the surface temperature had to increase to maintain the steady state flux balance imposed in the model.
Any warming was a mathematical artifact of the simplistic model calculations.
Arrhenius based his simplistic calculations based on a fantasy world that doesn’t exist..
As Angstrom pointed out 4 years later, Arrhenius’ calculations did not account for his observation that IR absorption by CO2 barely changed with changing concentration of CO2. This is borne out to this day.
“Climate alarmists assume there is a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather and climate, when no connection has ever been established.”
The CO2-climate connection was established, with a very overestimated ECS of CO2, in 1896. You must have been sleeping.
Just because a greenhouse gas (CO2) absorbs and emits energy does not mean that there is an established connection between that and any weather or climate change that occurs on Earth.
Some estimates of CO2 ECS are down near zero. How much effect can CO2 have if its ECS is near zero? How do you know it is not near zero? Answer: You don’t know. So you are just speculating when you claim that CO2 is connected to any weather or climate event. Just like climate alarmists speculate.
The greenhouse effect is measured 365 days a year and is increasing.
The increase must be DIRECTLY caused by manmade CO2 and/or clouds, for which we have no global average data.
You can not deny what is happening and being measured, unless you are dumb.
With a ECS of about +0.7 in a lab plus some amplification from a water vapor positive feedback, the claim of a near zero ECS in the atmosphere is data free claptrap.
Why believe in ‘water vapour feedback’?
When someone needs CO2 to be the control
knob for anything significant, then they reason
something like:
greater surface temperature =>
higher equilibrium water vapour levels =>
more warming => … a multiplier for the CO2 warming.
(They wanted there to be a multiplier for it because
using the empirical quantities:
1) would never look scary enough (modern issue),
2) would require a change of hypothesis in the case
of explaining ice ages (older issue).)
But raising the water vapour levels _could_ potentially
reduce the incoming sunlight, adding a negative feedback
right away.
What grounds are there to believe that there is an overall
effect here?
Spoken like a brain-washed anti-science AGW cultist !!
Your claims are total clap-trap.
Says the self proclaimed science brainiac who hides behind a moniker and claims nearly100% of climate scientists know nothing. A legend in his own mind.
[snip harassment]
LOL. Typical science denier. Only looks at one variable and then claims complete knowledge.
Brilliant sciene in that comment
[snip harassment]
You can not deny what is happening and being measured, unless you are dumb.
It’s allways amazing when a dumb person name others dumb 😀 😀 😀
Could you please upgrade your insults to at least somewhat witty or somewhat funny, Hairy Krishna?
LOL. Funny. The data is just that – data. The question is whether you are drawing the correct conclusions from the data that people are skeptical about. Your being 100% sure of your conclusions is YOUR problem, and doesn’t serve you or science very well.
Your beliefs ignore history and other, far more persuasive possibilities based on a more holistic approach that includes all the factors affecting current and temporary climate conditions. You started with the conclusion that it is all man-caused and sought only data that would support that, while ignoring a vast array of sciences which had alternative causal factors.
Your fanaticism is the denial of real science.
“in a lab”
Which has absolutely ZERO resemblance to the atmosphere.
You CANNOT measure ECS in a lab.
You can focus on one variable in a lab and measure the ECS. Lindzen and Happer accept the lab results. But I suppose you think you are smarter than them?
[snip harassment]
Anything can be achieved by redefining the meaning of words. “Established” is not quite the same as “postulated”.
It was PURE SPECULATION, based on an erroneous understanding of the atmosphere.
You should try and bring your education level out of the dark ages, dickie-bot !
Once again non-scientist bnasty claims nearly 100% of real climate scientists are wrong.
Next week bnasty will lecture us on ThermoDUMBnamics.
[snip harassment]
Silly nonsense from someone who can’t even define the greenhouse effect.
You must be scientifically ignorant…
The concepts of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity are pseudoscientific nonsense that are derived from an oversimplified one dimensional equilibrium or steady state climate model.
The basic model was first introduced by Arrhenius in 1896.
He used a uniform air column with a single start temperature (288 K).
This was illuminated by a fixed 24 hour average solar flux.
The surface was a partially reflective blackbody with zero heat capacity.
When the CO2 concentration was increased, the surface temperature had to increase to maintain the steady state flux balance imposed in the model.
Any warming was a mathematical artifact of the simplistic model calculations.
Arrhenius based his simplistic calculations based on a fantasy world that doesn’t exist..
And simplistic minds still go along with it.
“The CO2-climate connection was established,…., in 1896.”
That is a totally unsupportable comment.
All Arrhenius had was a baseless conjecture derived from a totally fictional not-Earth planet.
You need to be d sedated
And another lobotomy is desperately needed.
[snip harassment]
Angstrom debunked Arrhenius in 1900.
If CO2 is such a dangerous gas why do these WOKE totalitarians insist people wear masks, where CO2 intake is significantly higher than not wearing any mask, which reduces oxygen intake and causes all kinds of health issues with mammals. Isn’t being a dismal hypocrite bad for these un-scientist resumes?
The climate may very well be changing, but there is still no such thing as MAN MADE global warming.
There is manmade climate change
At least five different manmade causes of global warming
You are stupid
Several true facts.
“”You are stupid…””
Admirable charm. Tell me about your childhood…
I was able to do the NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle in 10 minutes at age 6. In pen.
Does say a lot about the quality of the puzzles. Can’t be worse… 😀
By ‘pen’ he means ‘crayon’ and by ‘do’ he means ‘scribble all over’. But his mommy told him he was ever so clever and gave him a cookie.
A “participation award”… for taking one of his mum’s cookies
Dickies ONLY achievement !
That was funny
I never mind funny insults
Show actual proof or you are stupid.
Science does not prove or disprove anything
You didn’t know that
Proof that YOU are stupid.
So you now ADMIT that you have no evidence of CO2 warming.
A tiny step for a tiny mind.
You haven’t shown me any proof of global warming yet but you are showing me proof that you are a waste of skin and an A hole as well.
Science does not prove or disprove anything
And that’s why you believe in consens ? I Think you are a lot more stupd as I feared.
“lot more stupid as I feared.”
I came to that realisation quite a long time ago. ! 🙂
You are an attention-seeking troll. Your Mommy and Daddy aren’t here, so you can stop the acting out.
Brilliant science free comment.
More science than you have ever managed.
Like all of yours.
As are every one of yours.
CO2 is not one of them. There is no evidence of any atmospheric warming by CO2 in the whole satellite temperature era.
You are brian-waahed AGW muppet.
So specify exactly how it works. I’m waiting for a complete, detailed description.
Yeah, that’s what I want to see. He claims CO2 atmospheric warming is obvious: RG: “The greenhouse effect is measured 365 days a year and is increasing”, so let’s see it. Where’s the evidence for this?
“Our study found that 14.8% of Americans deny that climate change is real…”
It is entirely possible that 14.8% of American respondents live somewhere that has not experienced significant climate change during their lifetime. They may be answering based on their personal experiences.
In my lifetime I have experienced little change in the place where I grew up and later returned to. It is a little warmer (Milder. This is the UK). But, by my metrics, it is not significantly different from the climate I experienced as a child.
I doubt the authors of this “study” have even considered such questions.
They should ask how many believe that climate change is a natural process.
If they had done that, that would have totally skewed the results they were aiming for…
“this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States”
This statement, alone, defines the folly of this discussion. The words “climate change” in this article, don’t describe climate change. They describe Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”. The unwashed masses who don’t believe in CAGW are then called “Climate Deniers”.
This all makes the entire treatise meaningless. When authors use word combinations that have different meanings than they have in ordinary conversations, without defining the difference, the resulting word salad is indigestible.
How can AI even know what to look for? I, for one, am quite surprised that they found that the ‘deniers’ are only 15 % of the population. I would put the number at over 50%, though I’m writing this from a denier state.
Asking if people believe in climate change is meaningless. Some interpret that as AGW and others as climate is changing. I doubt that anybody denies that climate is changing. But there are science deniers who believe that human emissions are the prinicpal cause of climate change.
I have long learned that it is climate cultists who are afraid to do an honest debate, they lie and ignore inconvenient facts all the time thus it is like speaking to a dumb brick wall.
I post regularly in a couple of forums about climate/weather stuff the reactions by warmist/alarmists are all the same but with varying degree of hostility over simple science and data stuff it is always surprising at how hard they try to ignore base facts/evidence solely because it contradicts their belief system that has been pounded into them by years of climate change propaganda.
Most of them are too far gone into the delusion land they developed due to lack of rational thinking and childlike insistence of a set of beliefs that have long been debunked years ago.
FACT: No Tropospheric Hot Spot exist.
FACT: No Positive Feedback Loop exist.
These are two facts that have been well established yet that reality gets ignored because of an existing climate cult that makes those who enroll in it profoundly ignorant and stupid.
There are positive feedbacks.
There are also negative feedbacks.
This is climate we are talking about, it is hugely complex and not well understood.
The evidence that is available is that the negative feedbacks vastly outweigh the positive ones.
Leftists do not debate anything they believe in for more than 10 seconds.
“Leftists do not debate anything they believe in for more than 10 seconds.”
Dickie just admitted he is a leftist. !
The lack of a tropical hot spot is the achilles heel of climate change. It is the result of a positive water vapor feedback assumption. Wthout strong water vapor feedback, climate change falls apart quickly.
You don’t get “feedback” unless there is a signal to start with.
There is no CO2 warming signal… therefore there can be no WV feedback.
Even if there was a CO2 warming, the mechanisms of any atmospheric feedback would be to damp and cancel that signal.
Completely agree, but some things are easier to see. The lack of a hot spot is one of them.
No Hot Spot = Alarmist Climate Scientists don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to how CO2 behaves in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Without a water vapor Hot Spot to enhance the greenhouse effect there is no “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)”.
Since Climate Alarmist Theory depends on a water vapor Hot Spot existing, the fact that it does not exist destroys their theory.
Talk about Denial: Climate Alarmists deny reality by ignoring the fact that the basis for their CAGW theory does not exist. They carry on as though a water vapor Hot Spot does exist. This is delusional thinking as it obviously does not exist.
No Hot Spot = No evidence for a connection between the Earth’s weather and climate and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It’s Dead, Jim!
“Climate change denialism persists in the United States, with estimates ranging from 12% to 26% of the U.S. population”
And since Elon Musk bought Twitter (X) our AI models have calculated that the percentage could rise to over 100% by 2050.
So they collected a mass of tweets that contained the vacuous buzzwords “climate change”, sorted out those sounding favorable, and declared the others “deniers.” Imagine what they do when polling to get their correct opinion majority numbers.
https://rclutz.com/2018/07/17/the-art-of-rigging-climate-polls/
The reality is quite different when you ask straight questions:
It is difficult to understand where they find those that deny that the climate can change, does change and will change. I don’t even know of anyone who denies that mankind can have an effect on climate, at least locally.
The argument is all in the degree and danger inherent in change.
I am concerned that few consider that changes could be for the better although I know few Canadians that would not welcome a warmer environment.
An exception is our current federal government who seem to think they can win votes by being the heroes fighting the demon climate change. If only they could find it in order to focus.
Is it possible that the author and the journal are more than a little biased — ” … climate change denialism”?
Unfortunately these childish and paranoid low-lifers are now directing/writing modern law
quote:“”Without much attention, a law was passed in France on Wednesday (14 Feb 2024) that could criminalize resistance to mRNA injections.
The contentious legislation, dubbed by critics as “Article Pfizer,” creates a legal framework that penalizes individuals who advocate against mRNA or other medical treatments deemed appropriate according to prevailing medical knowledge. This means that any opposition to mRNA therapy or corporate medical methods could result in criminal charges.
here
How long before climate denial goes the same way
Image from this X link:
https://twitter.com/AnneliseBocquet/status/1757878080209662228
I stopped reading after this lie:
“14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change.”
I have had 26 years of climate and energy reading, almost entirely of articles by skeptics (except plant growth CO2 enrichment studies by scientists)
Since 1997, I have never found one author, or any person, who denied climate change.
That excludes people who correctly reported the global average temperature was steady from 2015 through mid-2023, just before the El Nino began.
This appeared to be yet another example of a leftist insulting conservatives in a way that superficially seems to be intelligent. By making up data and a story
Antidote: Insult leftists every day to keep the doctor away, like this:
Leftists are vermin, but it is illegal to set traps for them.
What these climate alarmists are really talking about is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) when they say “climate change”.
We can’t talk about things rationally if everyone has a different defintion of what we are talking about, which is the case here.
Climate Change does not mean the same thing to alarmists and skeptics. Alarmists think climate change means the actual climate trend is changing and that weather events are changing and getting more extreme. Skeptics think climate change means it rained yesterday, and today it is partly cloudy and dry.
True scientists or anyone wishing to have an honest discussion will use terms that most clearly describe what they are talking about. Propagandists obscure their real message by mislabelling and making up terminology that is vague and imprecise. Using “climate change” as a surrogate term for CAGW has been a persistent tactic in the propaganda war for Net Zero, specifically because the truth won’t serve their purposes. The last thing these cultist want is to be fully understood in their intent.
What the climate alarmists are doing is mainstreaming an all-purpose catchphrase — climate change — that deliberately erases the line between natural causes and man-made causes.
The purpose is to make all climate change appear to be man-made. It’s obfuscation and exaggeration combined.
Exactly.
Was it Saul Alinsky who said, “He who controls the language, controls the masses”?
I think it was him.
Is that what he said, Barack?
“Anthropogenic Global Warming” as defined by the IPCC is all about warming by CO2
Net-zero and everything else in the “climate change” idiocy is about CO2
There is no evidence of any atmospheric CO2 effect in the whole of the satellite temperature data era.
Not worth the time to even read the title. It is unscientific, propagandist nonsense about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in the way they suggest. The term “climate change denial” would imply people don’t believe the climate changes which is very likely a rare finding among sentient individuals. That has nothing to do with the debate about recent mild global warming and what its causes are. The reason they label the wrong target is because they aren’t willing to address the real issue of debate having no facts or objective evidence to support their erroneous conclusions.
Stalin and his puppet Trophem Lysenko would be so proud of this masterpiece of brainless propaganda.
Weather is relevant
Climate is irrelevant
The weather will change more in the first two hours after sunrise every day than the global average climate has allegedly changed in the past 174 years.
Assuming the numbers pulled out of a Stetson hat for the 1850 climate actually resemble reality.
The temperature rises every morning, and most people think that is good news. But if the temperature s rises a similar amount over 100 years, that’s bad news?
Climate should be irrelevant — changes have zero effect on our everyday lives. You might notice warmer winters over several decades. How is that bad news?
Perhaps on January 1, 2025 my new goal will be ro deny there is a climate. There certainly is no global climate that anyone lives in. Locally, weather is FAR more important than “climate”
For 2024, my goal is to convince people that Nut Zero is a strategy to implement leftist fascism, disguised by claiming it’s needed to save the planet from “climate change”.
For 2023 ,my goal was to refute AGW deniers and those conservatives with bizarre data-free theories of climate change. That got me a few hundred thumbs down here. A tough audience.
Fascinating how you feel the need to slip politics into the above statement. Perhaps you get so many downvotes because you always come across as an arrogant, self righteous asshole.
Thanks, I will add that complement to my resume.
It will be the only thing there!
Just so you know Richard, despite the downvotes, I think you’re one of the best, most level headed audience members we have.
Thank you
Denying AGW, which is actually a pleasant climate change that harms no one, hurts in the effort to deny CAGW, which is an imaginary climate that exists only leftist imaginations. They
It is counterproductive to claim 100% of leftist climate science is wrong when the actual percentage might be 90% wrong. They focus on the 10% they get right, completely unrelated to CAGW, and then claim we are science deniers.
More CO2 makes plants grow bigger, with less water, and winters get a little warmer. Why do people deny that good news?
Enjoy it.
I’m also trying to break the old Griff downvote record.
Not even wrong.
/SARC ? 😀
No. Richard is thoughtful, has a firm grasp of scientific issues and I can’t think of a time I’ve disagreed with him.
All the caterwaulling over back radiation and violations of thermodynamics gets extremely tedious. The greenhouse effect is not in dispute.
Things that are in dispute:
The effect of feedbacks, negative and positive.
Solar changes.
Measurement uncertainty, temperature stations, changes in technology, siting of stations, station maintenance, ocean covearge, and many more.
Climate models.
UHI
censorship industrial complex.
Replication crisis.
Competency crisis.
Corruption of institutions .
And probably a few more I can’t think of sitting at the bar.
I might agree with you Charles, except for his tendency to be the first to resort to name-calling and insults, as well as a complete and utter inability to provide data to back up his random assertions. If he provided some data he’d get far fewer downvotes and, in all probability, far more upticks.
When someone says the sky is blue and someone screams out for a source, I can understand why they may not get a civil response.
One tires of stating obvious things over and over again.
I don’t read the comments that much, perhaps I’ve missed bad behavior on Richard’s part, but every time I’ve seen massive downvotes, he said something I agree with.
Hahaha. If Richard had said anything so mundane as the colour of the sky I would never have asked for evidence or data. Some things we can hold as self-evident, all others require evidence – Richard, at most, merely provides opinion.
100%
I have a theory that it is impossible to prove anything, but I can’t prove it. That’s my opinion.
Drivel.
“One tires of stating obvious things over and over again.”
Richard Greene says the current warming in the satellite era is from CO2. Do you agree with this statement?
I say CO2 is one cause of the warming since 1975. The percentage more than 0 and less than 100%.
More than zero and less than 100 percent leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Close to zero would be defined as imperceptable as far as its effects on the climate or weather and nothing to worry about, and nothing to destroy one’s economy over, either.
It’s close to zero, as far as I’m concerned, until proven differently, and it hasn’t been proven differently yet.
In my personal opinion the uncertainties inherent in measuring the total enthalpy of the Ocean/Atmosphere system are such that we don’t know if it’s warming or cooling.
That’s my opinion, too.
Richard is a science denier. He does not understand the concept of an hypothesis. Now, please tell me how he could possibly have a firm grasp of science and the scientific method.
Thanks again
The constant lying by leftists on every subject is amazing, along with the lawfare attack on Trump
Most bizarre to me is the false claim that global warming is bad news … and can only be stopped with fascism. It will require fascism to try to force unaffordable, infeasible Nut Zero on the population of those (fool) nations who bought into Nut Zero.
Almost seven billion people live in nations that could not care less about nut CO2 ... so Nut Zero can not stop the rise of CO2. But Nut Zero can support the rise of fascism. That’s my theme for 2024.
“…I think you’re one of the best, most level headed audience members we have.”
Which does send a very strong and very clear message to everybody else about the quality and orientation of your preferred audience. Something I will bear in mind from this point on.
I value all audiences. Doesn’t mean I can’t have bromances.
I agree with a lot of things Richard Greene says, especially about leftists, ):, but I think he is completely off base in his assumption that CO2 is causing the current warming we are experiencing.
Richard treats it as a given fact, when there is no evidence this is the case. Warming and CO2 increases could be coincidental and there is no evidence they are not. We had similar warmings to today, in the recent past, that are not connected to increases in CO2, so there is precedence for warming without CO2. I think that is the area where Richard gets most of his downvotes.
I don’t do downvotes, so none of them are from me. If I disagree with something strong enough, I usually say something.
That is Richard’s stated position. You find that objectionable how?
Well, the way Richard Greene makes the claim, the current warming in the satellite era is from CO2 and it is obvious it is from CO2.
I find that to be pure speculation.
We have had two similar warmings in the recent past of equal magnitude, yet those two warmings are not associated with increasing levels of CO2, so assuming this third warming *is* due mainly to CO2 flies in the face of history.
Objective Science should assume that the current warming was caused by the same mechanism that caused the previous two warmings, until proven otherwise, and to date, it has not been proven otherwise.
I’ve been looking for this evidence of CO2 warming for about 50 years and haven’t seen any yet. I’ve seen a hell of a lot of speculation, assumptions and assertions, though. But no evidence.
I invite any and all to provide any evidence they might have that confirms that all, or almost all, the current warming is due to CO2.
I have been asking for this evidence ever since the Internet came on-line.
I would have loved to have access to an internet during the Human-caused Global Cooling days. I would have loved to dispute the claims of these climate scientists. How would I dispute their claims/ By asking: Where’s the evidence?
I asked the same questions back then (to myself) about Human-caused Global Cooling, and what do you know, I was correct, and they didn’t have any evidence to prove humans were sending the Earth into another Ice Age.
Now, it’s on to Human-caused Global Warming, and I have just one question: Where’s your evidence?
I think Richard Greene is a close minded moron. We have asked him for some (any) empirical evidence of Human co2 induced atmospheric warming. He replies that we are science deniers. We showed him that the TSI has in fact increased over the modern period (formally acknowledged by the IPPC) and can explain all of the modern warming. He calls us science deniers. He is incapable of critical thought but believes he is a master of it. He is indeed a moron.
Modern warming from Sol…..
Sunspot counts are a terrible proxy for TOA solar energy. Just compare the NASA satellite data since the 1970s with the sunspot counts and you will see that is true.
[snip harassment]
[snip harassment]
“I think Richard Greene is a close minded moron.”
It that better than an open minded moron or worse?
[snip harassment]
Hire two bodyguards Charles. The AGW Denier mob is gathering and they are going to be coming after you next, with hoods on, carrying pitchforks and torches.
While I am prone to making (excessively ?) ironic and cynical posts myself, I often find it difficult to detect similar “(very) dark humour” in other people. A variant of Poe’s Law, I suppose.
On the off chance that you are serious in your New Year’s resolution for 2024, the following is a set of serious suggestions that might (?) help you achieve your goal.
1) Study the copy of Paul Graham’s “Debate Pyramid” attached below, and look for alternative variants elsewhere on the Internet.
2) Learn that it is (!) acceptable for other people to have sincerely held opinions that are different from yours.
3) If you really want to “convince” other people you should never, ever, descend to Level 7, “Name-calling (and/or Abuse)”.
4) Avoid posts that only rise to Levels 4 to 6, characterised by the suffix “… with little or no supporting evidence“.
5) Focus on constructing posts that rise to at least Level 3, characterised by the suffix “… backed up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence“.
… principally thwarted by your systematic violation of point (3) above …
I do like Graham crackers
That other Graham sounds like a tedious bore, and so do you.
Al Gore invented the internet so complete strangers could insult each other, hidden behind -monikers, without self-censoring.
“a tedious bore”
Dickie-bot must be missing a mirror..
Which is odd considering how much he likes to preen himself.
As an “extreme Voltairean” I believe that you have the right to your opinion, however much I may disagree with it.
Please copy the phrase(s) in my post that you interpreted as “an insult”.
Having re-read it several times I am unable to “see” any.
What is “leftist fascism’? Maybe kind of an amalgam of bad stuff? Since CAGW is the endorsed policy of all western governments wouldn’t it be true that most of the developed world is under the control of elected “leftist fascism”? Or is it the case, that like flourocarbons and the ozone layer and radon gas that seeps up from the basement, science has been prostituted to capitalism? Where does socialism belong in this scenario? After all, public education is socialism, as is the highway systems and many other modern institutions. Since the western governments are inarguably socialist maybe it’s time to change things or move.
There is a common misbelief that fascism is inherently right-wing. This is propaganda from the left, promulgated by the many former fascists in American academia.
Fascism, not to be confused with Nazism, is a progressive idea. Fascism is statist, elitist, anti-family anti-religions, wants public education controlled by experts and prices and wages determined by other government experts.
There is also a common misbelief that fascism is capitalist. Fascism allows for private property, but the state controls how it is used. The state might not own the means of production as in classic socialism, but the state still controls the means of production. Individual rights and freedom as are subservient to the needs of the state.
In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek traced the roots of fascism in Germany and documented how the National Socialist German Workers Party incorporated illiberal ideas from the left and the right into a political movement.
Nazism was fascism
Authoritative government controlling a privately owned economy. Freedom of speech only if you agree with the gpvernment
12 to 14 million Germans died as a result of having the wrong leader with too much power.
Nazism is a superset of Fascism. Nazism is Fascism, Fascism is not Nazism. I’m sorry if my meaning was unclear. The two are intertwined in the public’s mind.
Think of the differences between Mussolini and Hitler. Antisemitism was not part of Italian Fascism. Hitler used Italian Fascism as a model, if you recall.
As far as Fascism controlling the means of production, that’s exactly what Fascists do. I thought I was clear when I wrote control, as opposed to owning the means of production.
Nazism was left, not right as it’s declared, but now it is.
According to who?
Modern Nazis are racist, so were classical Nazis. The vast majority of socialists are racist.
Both modern and classical Nazis are anti-semitic, as are almost all socialists.
Both modern and classical Nazis believed that it was the job of government to get rid of those they don’t like and to force everyone to live in a manner that they approve of, as do almost all socialists.
Fascism is demonstrated by the lawfare persecution and prosecution of Donald Trump
Leftist fascism is leftist “expert” control of the private sector. They do not indicate they want to take over the means of production (socialism), which did not work in Russia, North Korea, Cuba and China.
Chinese growth is about 60% caused by private ownership of about 40% of the means of production, with strict government control — a hybrid Communist / fascist economy.
Government hasn’t completely messed up roads, therefore government should take over health care.
“For 2023 ,my goal was to refute AGW deniers”
In which you failed utterly and completely….
.. due to your total lack of ability to produce any scientific evidence.
In fact, your total lack of ability to produce any scientific evidence…
.. has probably made a lot more people realise just how unfounded and evidence free the CO2-warming conjecture really is.
You can respond with evidence… … or fail completely, yet again.
My success was to have you AGW deniers attack with science free insult posts and demands that I prove it … too stupid to know that science does not prove or disprove anything.
Almost 100% of scientists support the AGW theory based on data but the AGW deniers are too lazy, or too stupid to read what they say.
[snip harassment]
[snip harassment]
Stop. Your rants amounts to harassment and spam.
“Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education”
Yeah level of education in a three generation dumbing down campaign highlights the need for a total scrapping of current lefty educational outcomes and a cataloguing of Asterisk PhD’s to right the ship of state and unshackle young minds. Kudos to these intrepid, insightful researchers using climate as a tool to showcase this insidious problem. You are what you eat, indeed.