Why are some of the people who don't believe that humans are affecting the climate, so screamingly hateful towards those who do believe we affect the climate?

Listen to what they are saying. They believe that there is a global conspiracy involving nearly every scientist and scientific organization to fake data and models. The thousands of people involved intend to “destroy capitalism”.

Because they are right wingers in fear of the country going down the tubes. Even worse if they are very religious. America has been graced by God and doing not as He please could turn God away from America. If the Republican party is the party of God then not doing what the Republican leaders say is going against religion and God also. They need to believe in the whole thing, it is their contruct of America and their religion. Capitalism is Aligned with God, atheism is communism.

Stolen from Bill Maher.

The One Percent Doctrine

The same should apply to climate change.

What’s staggering to me, is that this country has been through one of the worst ecological disasters in human history, the Dust Bowl. We know the Dust Bowl to have been caused by poor farming techniques. And it’s not like the Dust Bowl is some obscure, nearly forgotten event from some period in this nation’s history long beyond personal recall, there are people still around who lived through it and who can recount it vividly. Yet in spite of this there are a not insignificant number of people in this country who think we have no impact on our environment at all. That kind of head-in-sand disbelief is frightening.

Many people like to control other people. Surely that is a fact of human history that you won’t disagree with.

They use all kinds of means to do it: Appease the volcano gods. Sacrifice your virgin daughter. Appease the rain gods. Burn your cattle in offering. Appease this, that or the other god. Live as I say.

Climate change is… a fact. The Earth’s climate changes all the time. Most of the time in geological history that has been due to change in the solar cycle. Sometimes it has been due to asteroid hits. Many other times volcanoes and super-volcanoes have affected the climate for decades – that we know of.

Right now the argument is whether or not human activity is having a large scale effect on climate. If it is – which is postulated but unproven – then the question is whether or not that is a detrimental change or not. (And detrimental to whom or to what: people everywhere? some people in certain parts of the world? animals everywhere? plants everywhere? etc.) That’s not yet proven, either, except at the extreme: any change that results in uncontrolled rise in temperature would certainly be detrimental to “life as we know it”.

Many people seem to have glommed onto “climate change” as a new religion led by new priests insisting that “they know best” how we should all live. Many of us are agnostic, and want to choose our own ways to live.

The “screaming hatefulness” goes both ways. Not all on either side engage in that, either.

^^ Golf clap.

@CWOTUS this

@Darth_Algar The dust bowl was partially caused by bad farming techniques. It was mainly the drought. We learned from that luckily. One of the few cases where we did.

Could not agree more, @johnpowell. I actually applauded the screen when I heard Bill say a few nights agoo.

Why are people who believe that global warming is absolutely caused by humans so insistent that they are right, and everyone else is wrong?
I don’t know if global warming is caused by humans. I do think we should control our toxins and pollution, just in case. I don’t think I am as harsh with those who are convinced, as they are with me.

Some people think climate change is being used to influence their behaviour and criticize their way of life and they object to that. However mankind is undeniably producing huge amounts of CO2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, increased CO2 will warm the planet and the planet is warming. This is scientific and measurable; it was even predicted long before the effects could be measured.

From what I’ve seen, your question is twisted 180º out of alinement. It’s the true believers in global warming that are doing the hateful screaming.

Well, @gondwanalon, I haven’t seen or heard any climate-denier deniers “screaming,” but man, what could be more worth screaming about than trying to protect our planet from man-made damage.

Some might think the climatologists are suggesting that man is the ONLY contributor to the problem rather than just being augmenters. Some might be overly confrontational about it.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Fact.
Humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere en masse since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The current human CO2 production is at 29 gigatonnes per year. Fact.
Humans have been diminishing the planet’s ability to reprocess CO2 by destroying forests on a global scale. Fact.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are steadily increasing. Fact.
Global average temperatures are rising. Fact.

To claim that human CO2 production has no effect on global temperature: absolute madness.

It goes both ways. Some climate change believers are screamingly hateful to skeptics. The same happens in every debate. There are good people and idiots on both sides.

The ones who scream at me, scream that the government is pouring billions of dollars into developing new technology that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels and it’s all a scam to make a few people rich. It isn’t needed, they say, because we aren’t affecting the climate. The only thing that shuts them up is when you point out that whether we’re affecting the climate or not, the fossil fuels ARE going to run out so we WILL need the technology that is being developed, and pretty dang quick too.
It really does shut them up.

@Dutchess_III You know, there are even those that deny they are going to run out.

I heard about that. But I have yet to have any climate change deniers throw that up as any kind of proof. Not all of them are supremely stupid.

@gondwanalon “It’s the true believers in global warming that are doing the hateful screaming.”

Your use of the term “true believers” is telling. A true believer is someone who continues to believe in something after it has been proven to be false.

Since anthropogenic global warming is supported by thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists in dozens of nations over decades of time—how can anyone accepting global warming to be true also be a “true believer”?

The only explanation is is that you don’t know what a “true believer” actually means, or you think global warming has been proven false—or that it’s true there is no global warming, despite evidence to the contrary, which would make you the “true believer”.

I don’t know how we could NOT affect the climate. Look at what we do.

I would say it is mainly because of hypocrisy and anti-capitalistic solutions. Take a guy like Al Gore who rants about climate change and then hops into his private jet consuming large amounts of energy which is taking him to his large house that consumes above average electricity.

Capitalists prefer free market, property rights, and tort law for environmental concerns.

@eno Which have been the anti-capitalist solutions?

For fuck’s sake, why do climate change denies act like Al Gore is the be-all-end-all on the subject?

@Kropotkin

I was talking abstractly but from what I understand, the general theme of an environmentalist to solving climate change is an approach that is contrary to a capitalist one. So instead of a free market solution, government intervention would be the solution. Instead of property rights, you would have emphasis on community control, etc.

The majority of the players in the free market don’t give a damn about polluting the air. There has to be some government regulations to protect the people. Free market might eventually solve those problems but it takes much longer. They might do it after being sued or do it when a competitor makes a much better and safer product and gains market share because of it. In the mean time people have been hurt and sometimes died.

@eno In the 200 years or so of industrial capitalism—what have been the environmental benefits?

It just seems odd to me to seek solutions in a system which created the very problems in the first place, and which, to me at least, does not appear to have the mechanisms to offer any.

Unless of course, you think the market is some sort of ideal and natural expression of an aggregate will, derived from the actions and desires of self-interested actors—and all our individual actions and transactions will self-organise into solutions for environmental problems.

@Kropotkin That kinda didn’t make any sense. It’s like saying we searched for a better government by relying on previous governments, including bad ones, so the better government is useless.

@Dutchess_III I don’t know what you’re objecting to or how your analogy relates to what I said.

I was referring to this comment “It just seems odd to me to seek solutions in a system which created the very problems in the first place…”

We didn’t know the problems it was going to cause when we started. However, now we do know and thanks to the technology that “system” created we can now create a better way.

I get mad at people who preach about climate change, because, for one, I believe that it is a natural occurrence. But what really makes my blood boil is that all of the solutions they put forth to “stop” climate change are going to cost me a ton of money.

@Skaggfacemutt “because, for one, I believe that it is a natural occurrence”

Some people also believe in faeries, and that woman was created from the rib of a man. Lots of people have delusional beliefs—that’s just an unfortunate part of the human condition.

” . . . all of the solutions they put forth to “stop” climate change are going to cost me a ton of money.”

I didn’t realise you were personally asked to pay for everything. I also don’t know what it is you think is going to cost you a “ton of money”. What is required is a shift in resource allocation and application of technology—does that “cost” you more when it’s for the long-term benefit of everyone?

Actual solutions involve reducing costs. It costs less to have renewable energy that is essentially in an infinite supply than to constantly drill and dig for something that’s finite. It costs less to produce less waste than it does to pollute the sea and land.

The costs of doing nothing will be considerably higher.

@Skaggfacemutt whether it’s true or not is really beside the point. No one can deny that we will run out of fossil fuels and we need to be ready with a replacement before that happens. In order to come up with the replacement, we need to be working, and spending money on exactly what we’re doing now.

You don’t believe that climate changes by itself? Then can you explain why the climate has constantly been changing since the beginning of time?

The solutions that I am referring to is – buy a new car (hybrid). I can’t afford a new car, and certainly can’t afford to buy a new battery for it when it goes out. I hear they are 5 or 6 thousand dollars.

Put more money into mass transit. Salt Lake has dumped millions of our tax dollars into that, and still I can’t go 12 miles without changing busses twice, and the trip would take 3 hours.

@Dutchess_III I wish I had your faith in the government, or scientists, whoever, that are supposed to be finding a solution. Like most government projects or scientific studies, we just keep pouring money in, and nothing comes out.

If we could find one smart guy that actually wanted to come up with a solution instead of just using it as an excuse to line his own pockets, that would be wonderful. My mother was just saying the other day that the rail system in America used to work. What happened? The tracks are still there. Yet, it would take me a week to get to her house in Florida, as I would have to take it to Los Angeles first, and then for the return trip, I would have to take it to New York, Chicago, back to Los Angeles, and then over to Salt Lake. The cost would be four times the cost of a flight and take me about a month. Are we really so stupid that we can’t make a train system work?

@Dutchess_III “We didn’t know the problems it was going to cause when we started. However, now we do know and thanks to the technology that “system” created we can now create a better way.”

Which system created what technology? We’re amidst the greatest loss of biodiversity in millions of years. Unprecedented levels of pollution. Atmospheric CO2 is rising unabated. The private sector is mainly paying lip-service to environmental concerns primarily as part of a marketing strategy to increase sales and consumption.

Sure. The technology is there. The shift toward applying the technologies on the scale necessary is not happening. It’s not profitable. It’s not viable—for economic and political reasons tied to the system.

Of course the climate has changed by itself, drastically too. But how can we dump so much CO2 into the atmosphere and not expect it to affect anything?

Eventually hybrid cars will become affordable. Everything usually does. Also, science IS coming up with energy alternatives. And they NEED to because we’re going to run out of fossil fuels. I mean, what would you suggest as a solution to that problem @Skaggfacemutt?

I mean, @Kropotkin, for example, the factories that create the wind turbines are causing pollution at the same time. However, eventually we can perfect the technology until the wind turbines can power the factories themselves.

@Skaggfacemutt “You don’t believe that climate changes by itself? Then can you explain why the climate has constantly been changing since the beginning of time?”

There are long term shifts which happen over tens of thousands of years, and there are shorter term oscillations in the climate.

The average global temperature rise in recent decades, and the observed climate changes are not accounted for by any natural variables or trends. The culprit is quite clear, and that is the record high levels of CO2.

CO2 absorbs energy that’s bouncing off the Earth and would otherwise go straight out into space. The energy then re-emits in different directions. This has the effect of trapping more energy and the atmosphere getting a little warmer. This greenhouse effect has been known for around 150 years.

There is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than has been in about 3 million years.

@Kropotkin Oh, I see. Well, that does pose a problem. Even if our efforts are largely fruitless, I still say it’s a step in the right direction to make mass transit systems that work.

And I say again, we give millions of dollars to the “experts” to make it happen, and the money goes right into their pocket.

That is what happened with UDOT (Utah Dept. of Transportation). The scandal was all over the news, UDOT officials awarding contracts to companies that they or their family members owned, and the squandering, and downright embezzling, of public funds. We have a bus and train system that is only useful if you happen to be going it’s way. Not a feasible solution to getting to and from work, by any stretch of the imagination. So much for the government.

This is why it infuriates me when the politicians want the people to agree to giving them millions (if not billions) of dollars to research this problem. That is a good way to get NO results.

I am afraid that our society has become too corrupt to trust anybody with a large sum of money.

@Kropotkin In the 200 years or so of industrial capitalism—what have been the environmental benefits?

I agree with you that environmental harm is a market failure, but I disagree with you that each time there is a market failure, the government should use it as an excuse to step in. It is what leads to unintended consequences, prolonging the problem (like FDR did with the economic depression) or fixing one problem while creating 10 new ones, or counter-intuitive ones.

I most certainly agree with you that Capitalism isn’t an ideal system and that is the point. Market failures are part of human nature. The illusion if the government were policing the people better or that it can intervene all problems, is ludicrous.

The way I understand it, a capitalist’s argument is that the core issue with market failures is an issue of property rights. This is a government issue. At the same time, the government laws override or obscure property rights and thus fail to protect them adequately. As mentioned before, tort laws need adjusting as well.

@JLeslie There has to be some government regulations to protect the people.

You mean like how the regulators of Federal Reserve and Security exchange commision stopped 2 depressions are 15 recessions from hurting people? Or stopping guys like Bernie madoff from hurting people? How about Worldcom? Enron? Lehman bro’s? AiG? Sterns?

Or how about ethanol ? Cash for clunkers? Environmental cars where the production harms the environment more than the car benefits? Anyway….I don’t think I’ll be sucking government dick any time soon.

As some would say…

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.—Benjamin Franklin

@eno The government fucks up all the time.

@Skaggfacemutt ” I still say it’s a step in the right direction to make mass transit systems that work.”

Sure. It would be a great boon for many people. The resources, manpower and technology are there to make it happen. The only limitations are self-imposed economic and political constructs.

@eno ”. . . but I disagree with you that each time there is a market failure, the government should use it as an excuse to step in. It is what leads to unintended consequences, prolonging the problem (like FDR did with the economic depression) . . .”

I’m neither a liberal nor a social democrat, and don’t specifically advocate government intervention (although I’ll often accept it as the most preferable option from whatever is viable).

The idea that the New Deal somehow prolonged the Great Depression is a particular historical and economic narrative that only has favour among those who get their information from Austrian and Libertarian (more aptly: Propertarian) sources.

_”. . . the government laws override or obscure property rights and thus fail to protect them adequately.”

I just don’t think this argument makes any sense given the historical context of private property. Without the state, there would be no such thing as private property; and consequently capitalism. (I appreciate that you probably disagree wildly with this.) Government itself is an administrative and executive branch of the state which has historically served the interests of the propertied class—namely capitalists—because buying politicians counts for more than voting for them.

I am an austrian/libertarian, but that stems from my nihilism/hedonism.

I do disagree with your former statement on property rights, but I do agree with the latter. A capitalist solution to crony capitalism is limiting the powers of the government. The idea being that you cannot buy out power that isn’t there to begin with. The case with the latter is a government issue, not a market one.

limiting the powers of government automatically increases the power of the neoaristocrats, a.k.a. capitalists, because that removes legal limitations of corporations as well as any protections of the citizens against the moneyed oppressors.
That is why the corporate infiltrators and demagogues pursue these two goals:
You either buy the government to do your bidding, or you destroy it so it can not act against you.
The same reason why mobsters bribe cops, while at the same time wishing there was no police at all.

No, because you still have property rights. Contracts are still protected. That is the main component of the stability of capitalism. This is why I emphasize its importance. It has to be properly defined under law. It protects Corporations and the citizens. Add in tort law, and that is the extent of the limited government I refer to. Obviously, you have to ignore the idealism here, but i prefer this sort of methodology than the ideals of government solutions.

By increasing the power of the government, you increase the power of those who are wealthy because they can now buy out more government power for their benefit and for dominance over others.

@Kropotkin You seem so mesmerized by my use of true believer that you totally missed my point. The screamers are the believers (true or whatever).

@gondwanalon There was nothing mesmerising about your prose. You had some nebulous idea that “true believer” was a pejorative, then went ahead and completely misused the term—in your attempt to sling mud at a group of people you incorrectly think are wrong (which more aptly makes you the true believer).

It’s time for you to move on and stop appearing foolish.

@Kropotkin HA! You crack me up! I was merely answering the question and you take a portion of my answer and flip out about it. I slung mud at no one. I absolutely meant nothing derogatory to people who believe in man caused global warming. You twisted and contorted my intent. This is something that a nice person does to other people.

Perhaps I should have been less terse in my original answer. I think that people who are convinced that man caused global warming is fact tend to be more vocal and passionate about their views than people who deny it.

FYI: Personally I think that human activity is likely affecting global warming to some degree.