hive mind informs climate change believers and sceptics

Solution?

“...to include approaches that will change the relationship between the two groups,”

So, give them a flower?

what's most depressing

... Is the reality or not of agw hardly matters. The technology we could have started creating 25+ years ago to deal with the problem would have made us all better off *even if there's no problem*. Instead we ended with denial shortchanging us of investment and believers pushing through any desperate political fix they could as time ran down.

We know it's worth dumping carbon fuels, it's probably really worth bankrupting many of the suppliers along the way and taking out their corrupt states and terrorist support. None of it depends on agw. But we just have bickering aresholes delaying like it was an Olympic sport.

Sickening tribalism.

Shocked

So the MMCC co2 theory, AGW, global warming, global cooling, climate change, we all gonna die, we all gonna fry, we all gonna drown, nothing ever changes debate between those with absolute certainty based on their choice of 'scientific' cherry pick is actually 2 cults arguing which religion is right? I am not surprised.

The problem unfortunately is that one cult has power and are doing the best they can to sacrifice as many people as possible to appease their beliefs and force it on the rest of us. The other cult sound just as mad but hold no danger.

As for science it continues on trying to understand the way things work. The conclusion is not available before the work is done and our understanding about our little world is increasing. Like most religions both cults will justify their beliefs regardless of whatever facts are actually discovered whenever that happens.

The only thing I am certain of is that the term 'scientist' has had its reputation very badly damaged by the snake oil pushers. Especially from the group who are currently pushing their beliefs on everyone else.

34 years of needless CO2 panic and CO2 death threats is a pure war crime in history

You "believers" exaggerate science's "could be" consensus because not one CO2 scientist has ever said their scientific method won't allow them to say it's "proven" even though it's a "possible threat to the planet" and it "could be too late".

So how close to unstoppable warming will science drag us before they finally say it's "proven" that the end is near so we can end this costly debate to SAVE THE PLANET from evil Human CO2.

I don't know for sure but...

I don't know anything about planetary climatology, how the weather works, or anything like that. So I also have genuinely no idea whether "global warming caused by humans" is true or not true.

However - the idea seemed to come from nowhere and provided the perfect excuse for the introduction of yet another tax ("carbon tax") by people I don't trust. This does tend to colour my judgement quite a lot. Follow the money.

Cultural marxism

reading between the lines, it sounds like the methods of cultural Marxism will be even more diligently brought to bear, to manufacture some consent for regulation/control/taxation. The APGW scam must be really important to somebody.

Climate change exaggeration of vague science is a war crime for history to judge.

Climate change "deniers" have prevented climate action for 34 years so why don't you remaining "believers" just give them what they want so we can end this debate to SAVE THE PLANET for our children. Just quote one CO2 scientist that says they can't say "proven"because of the scientific method and stop telling our children science has said this. They have not.

What's new

Our 'independent' opinions/views have been 'shaped' for quite some time. here in the UK we have a government department dedicated to changing our behaviours through subtle psych techniques. Not a very big stretch of the imagination to extend that capability to scientific beliefs. Complicit in this are the so called independent press LMAO =D

Jelo was so right

Remember to 'shut up, and try not to think'

Climate Blame; a play.

"Mommy?"

Yes dear.

"You know how you told us that me and my sister need to save the planet from climate change...

Yes

"How close to unstoppable warming will science take us before they say what you say?"

And what was that I said again?

"You said science said it was "proven" but they have not ever said that, just you have."

That's because science can't say anything is "proven", it wouldn't be proper science if they did.

"But not one scientist has ever said that about climate change, you know; that "threat to the planet"?

I'll let you in on a little secret honey. Your father and I hate conservatives and neocons and Republicans and Tea Party types so we exaggerate climate science so we can blame them for something because conservatives are evil fear mongers."

"So you tell your own children they are doomed but we are not?"

Yes, exactly.

"Doesn't that make you a fear monger then?"

It's for a good cause because if we don't defeat the bible thumping knuckling neocons we will all be dead.

"Ok"

US Residents

I.e. the people who are politically polarised nut-jobs are engaged in group-think and hate the opposing group. Hmmm

Save the planet for who, though?

I know I've said this before (quite possibly in this very forumette), but could somebody tell me why I should do anything for future generations? I mean, what have they ever done for me?

Sorry about that, but I just reread Simak's City, and Joe's attitude of 'Why should I care what people think of me after I'm dead? I'll still be dead and their respect or derision won't change that.' is starting to appeal more and more.

Climate Change Belief is a War Crime for the History Books.

-Due to climate change’s polar ice expansion, Canada's Liberal leader; Justin Trudeau now says that a Carbon Tax will pay for more icebreakers.

-ISIS is offering to save the planet by reversing the effects of unstoppable warming with a nuclear winter.

-Scientists now say that millions of wind turbines could send the planet out of orbit.

-How many climate blame scientists does it take to change a light bulb? None, but they do have full consensus that it "could" change.

-What's another word for "climate change denier"? Evolved.

-Why did the climate blame "believer" cross the road? Because everyone else was.

-We must please the angry weather gods by sacrificing our fires?What century is this?

-A Liberal's Political Promise is to make the weather nicer but colder by taxing the air we breathe with bankster funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by trust worthy politicians.

Both sides of the climate change debate tend towards group conciousness and define their positions based, in part, on hating the other side of the argument, according to a letter published in Nature: Climate Change.

So say's someone compelled to put word's in my mouth.

There is NO Carbon climate forcing....there is a RIGGED fake debate.

No gas molecule can capture, store, redirect (as claimed) or amplify radiant energy. This has been a three sided debate between the elitist directed Darth BIG Warmists, the controlled opposition Luke LITTLE Warmists and the independent and informed Obie NO Warmists. See....

"Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" and "Greenhouse Gas Ptolemaic Model"

both at the FauxScienceSlayer website. Find and share Truth, it is you duty as an Earthling.

There is a basic problem with the argument, It is possible to deny the vast majority of scientists and models and possibly be right although somewhat unlikely. But to deny human based climate change you must explain why it would not happen or even more unlikely explain how climate would remain unchanged when massive amounts of additional heat is being retained. The greenhouse effect itself is standard science proven since the 1860s both inside and outside the lab which simply states that not as much heat is reflected as you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not a theory or model but fact and anyone who denies it simply is denying reality. No scientist denies this. It is also fact that since the 1760s the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to almost 400ppm. We add billions of tons of CO2 each year so you might argue that it has no effect and the extra CO2 came from somewhere else but that does not seem very logical. . This is also fact. Sounds small and is except when it applies day after day on the entire surface of the planet you can do the math and the number is enormous. So it is the responsibility of the person who claims there is no change to explain where all this extra heat goes, not only explain where it goes but explain how the climate would stay the same as it is now. No one has been able to do this and there is not one scientific paper that can explain it. Ideas have been floated and some peer reviewed papers have been put forward that might explain some of it but nonet cne has described how the climate could be unchanged while adding massive amounts of heat to the atmosphere.

We have a problem

First time blogger or whatever. I have read the article and comments. My conclusion is earthlings we have a problem.

It seems to have stemmed from money and politics - with everyone having already made up their minds on what they believe and appear to be willing to defend it to the death of the planet.

The arguments have become childlike debates raging around the developed countries by people who have too much money.

Seriously it's like we need a grown up to step in to stop all the name calling on both sides. From the comments I have read you make the article true.

So let's move on to the bigger picture - we live in a tiny bubble called earth and we are polluting it to make money and the money buys political backing hence a very nice little self sustaining circle.

BTW I believe in God because that is my belief system, but I understand and support science because it is based on the pursuit of knowledge and facts and I do not support any political group because they all lie.

So it is time to clean up the planet and get over this delay in doing the right thing and spending money on developing a better tomorrow because they are so many good ideas that are cheap and would make it easier to breath.

Feast your eyes...

...on these, and tell me: would you like to live in a smog free city? Is there any debate about this at least? Who likes to live in a city like this? Please, tell me. Regardless of global warming or not this is a real threat that should be dealt with unless you think the polluted air like this is healthy for you to inhale all day long.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1713915/thumbs/o-SMOG-facebook.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/22/article-1379159-0BBBF92C00000578-803_964x545.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/LondonSmogJM04_468x328.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/LondonSmogJM03_468z312.jpg

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article7575336.ece/alternates/w460/London%20smog.jpg

Is that enough? Just search for "London smog", "New York smog", or "city smog" if it isn't and "enjoy" the view. Cheers. :/

Did anyone read the paper?

The El reg link leads to a paywall, and the abstract says little more than presented here.

Read!

The document(s) (download free .PDFs) at IPCC.ch

There is no disagreement with climatologists. However these documents also have inputs from governments.

'Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskas et al.

It's shocking that so few have been able, with help from the media, to influence so many people on such an important subject.

NEED to separate the climate change issue from the idea of TAXING. Its just being used as an excuse to tax, therefore I will never agree that global warming is happening.

Abivalent about Belief

Ambivalent about belief.

On the one hand, Belief - as in mostly shared belief - has an important evolutionary function: builds social trust allowing large societies of irrational beings to function.

On the other hand, ALL Belief by definition is completely irrational and tends to drive differences in circumstances and views to hostility and onwards towards war - a dangerous destination, given the proliferation both of weapons of mass destruction from thermonuclear to chemical to biological to software terrorism and the devolution of who can obtain and employ such weapons from Super Powers to States to Groups towards Individuals.

I'm hostile to all believers, regardless of what they allegedly believe in (usually as noted it’s just part of their self-image, the group identification part). I am moving however towards hating them all.

Perhaps impugning the alleged efficacy of ALL groups might be a useful substitute, as exterminating the believers without exterminating is all would be challenging.

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/02/03/groupthink_hive_mind_informs_climate_change_believers/#comment-form

whatever

One thing that is undeniable is that there is change in the climate, whatever the cause.

People I've met and spoken to all around the world, especially older people in poorer countries involved in agriculture or fishing where it is most keenly felt are very aware of it. They do understand that there are longer term cycles at work like El Nino because their parents and grandparents pass this knowledge down. But they're now seeing dramatic changes that are happening in very compressed timeframes.

So regardless of the cause, it is still worth paying attention to this as it will affect everyone at some point either directly or indirectly.

Kant and Religion

Are we not treading through waters that have been previously muddied? Does not the true believer approach the infidel with the same fury as that displayed during the Hundred Years War?

anything with the word "science" tacked on the end ... isnt!

that thought always makes me chuckle ^_^

A hater is going to hate

And there are way more haters than thinkers in today's society...

Even if you feel you have a valid argument one way or another, it just get's face palmed by over-inflated personality disorders.