hive mind informs climate change believers and sceptics 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. Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities(PDF), penned by folks from …
The kind of people who engage in the debate about climate change below the line in comment sections are never going to convert each other, so the conclusion of this research is correct. Note though that “Strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that will change the relationship between the two groups ...” states the obvious: AGW climate change is real and must be tackled.
I'm also a bit sick of this childish idea that something I don't agree with is the object of hate.
For goodness sake grow up, even my youngest child understands the difference between hating something, not liking it and criticising it.
I'm quite capable of changing my mind in the climate change debate should a suitable argument be presented.
"I'm quite capable of changing my mind in the climate change debate should a suitable argument be presented."
Well, you didn't say what state your mind is currently in, and posting as an AC doesn't allow previous comments to be taken into account, but I'd guess that the mountain of scientific evidence that current climate changes are due to our emissions of greenhouse gases doesn't count as a "suitable argument" to you.
@AC
"I'm quite capable of changing my mind in the climate change debate should a suitable argument be presented."
I find that statement to be rather unlikely.
If you believe that humans are a relevant contributing factor in the climate; that our activity can and does have an effect, then you already believe that the evidence is overwhelming - that 'AGW' is a suitably well-established fact.
If, on the other hand, you believe that either the climate is not changing or, that if it is, humans are not a relevant contributing factor, then you do not accept the evidence that has already been presented or do not believe that evidence even has been presented at all.
In some ways, it's similar to the evolution-vs-creation debate. I don't mean to imply that those who deny that humans are a cause of climate change are necessarily fundamentalist Christians (because that is simply not true*), but often the argument sounds the same, with those who believe it is true saying "the evidence is in and it's overwhelming!" while the other side says "show me the evidence!".
Its no wonder the public is so intractable and so whichever side you are on, my cowardly friend, as you say you will change your mind (rather than make it up) I can't see that that is all that likely - you either believe the evidence is overwhelming and so it would take a lot to get you to discount it or you don't trust/accept the evidence that has been so far claimed, in which case more evidence you don't accept is not going to do anything.
And this is the problem - those who believe it is real cry that the deniers side is blindly ignoring good evidence, while those who do not believe it is real cry that the believers are blindly accepting bad evidence.
* - Although evangelical Christians are least likely to believe in AGW, it is also correlated with age, education, and where you live, with the most likely to reject AGW being a 65+ evangelical Christian living in the rural south. Ref & ref.
> And this is the problem - those who believe it is real cry that the deniers side is blindly ignoring good evidence, while those who do not believe it is real cry that the believers are blindly accepting bad evidence.
And both are correct.
Me? Unconvinced. But happy to support using less fossil fuel because that's cheaper. Not happy to support windmills that only work three days per year. Happy to support hydroelectrics which work (though your standard hippy has a divide by zero on those because they mean CHAINING GAIA WITH DAMS). Happy to support nuclear power which works and is safer than any other form of generation. Not happy with carbon trading and taxes on fuel because that's making poor people pay for your greenness.
Not about to vote Green because not batshit insane.
The science is indefensible; the IPCC has lost credibility, and US, UK and Australian government climate agencies have been caught in data-altering frauds, climategate, statements pulled out of thin air, etc. In spite of censorship and professional retaliation against scientists who refuse to support the fraud, the science scam has failed. The paper is one of a genre portraying ethical scientists as anti-social people who are aligned with their professional cohort and have no interest in the common good or the welfare of the planet. The support for climate change, in addition to scientists who want to keep their jobs, is from people with no scientific knowledge who have no clue regarding the fraud and who read only liberal media. The 97% consensus of scientists i really 41 out of the 13944 abstracts that skepticalscience's John Cook found using 'global warming' and 'climate change' as search terms. This link is the paper he published and shows that 2/3 of these abstracts didn't even mention AGW, but it doesn't include abstracts subtracted because they were written by psychologists or economists or scientists who had mot of their research rejected by journals, and those misclassified as supporting AGW when the authors didn't support it. The "97% consensus" is really a 0.3% consensus.
All the left thinking ones are increasingly irritated by the Registers continuing campaign on the side of AGW skepticism.
I mean, it's one thing to be suitablly skeptical, it's another to be circling an ever shrinking drain of denialism. As a result, my register reading has gone from daily to once a month.
I came here from Google News and I'm somewhat of a lefty.
Social sciences are broken. Here's my rendition of every sociology study's conclusion...
"Our hypothesis could be correct or wrong - But it's certain we'll need more funding to be sure."
As for global warming, the science behind it makes sense and the numbers back up the claims. I'm mostly fine with carbon taxes too. But the truth is, this isn't a problem we'll solve through taxation or penalties. The market will adopt electric vehicles once they're affordable. People want the future - it just needs to be within reach. Governments should really step in when it comes to deforestation. We need to plant more dense forest with rich biodiversity. We can turn that excess carbon into plant matter and wood. And if we run out of room to plant more trees, we just burry some and plant new trees on top. (Cutting down the old ones, of course, and burrying them anerobically so they don't rot)
But hey, just in case you think I'm not really a lefty, I think everyone should get a basic income, all health care and education should be completely free, and I think the richest people should only be 100 times richer than the poorest people. (Extremities of wealth are problematic and often result in exploitation and increased crime rates)
Worse than merely Rubbish - much of this "social science" is proven to be lies and libel and slander, intended to shape people's opinions into acceptance of some particular collectivist ideological agenda. And yes, I do have the court documents and transcripts to show where this was proven.
No, it's actually true. They are stating the obvious. I've come to the same conclusion myself, long time ago.
Once one group starts to hate the other - there is nothing that the other says that can be right. They will then go to great lengths trying to rationalise how even an obvious truth stated by the other side is simply a cunning deception or an outright lie.
Or maybe he has tried, time and again, to have a discussion with posters of a different opinion only to regularly find his points ignored, his mother insulted and his masculinity put in question.
Whatever "side" you may be on on the question of AGW-now-rechristined-Climate-Change, you have to admit that no forum discussion is possible outside of people who agree with you. The entire subject is void of any more reasoning, it's just shouting louder than the other guy.
A pitiful state for such an important question. Thankfully, it does not keep scientists from doing their job and continuing to gather data and analyze it.
Well reasoned. Now the commentard attacks on each other as to the validity of Climate Change, etc. will start and thereby prove the correctness of the study. Even if you take no stance, you will be attacked by someone who thinks you don't believe as you do and that you are an imbecile.
It doesn't just apply to Climate Change. Pick almost any topic.. Microsoft, Apple, Linux, even Kim Dotcom, ad infinitum... there will be the same results.
Except that it does. I've been in the room when the decision makers have discussed budgets at one of the agencies that frequently comes under fire. And it is clear that they are making their decisions on the basis that supporting the climate change agenda will get them more money and more people and increase their power. The science never comes into play.
The problem is that far too many people who are incredibly ignorant about science and data analysis think themselves qualified to tell the public their misguided and ill-informed (and often baseless) opinion.
It doesn't help though that those who comment on blogs usually need to condense their argument into 100 words or so rather than show their detailed reasoning or supporting material.
One of the big problems is when people start accusing others of having an agenda - the 'deniers' are just corporate shills looking to avoid or repeal legislation that might eat into big-business profits and prevent growth, while the 'believers' are part of some leftist-elitist bully mob forcing some doctrinal belief on everyone else or after grant money or, as with the deniers, corporate shills, but for the 'green' industries that stand to gain from regulations and legislation.
Once you do that, you have immediately moved from debating truth or science to an attempt to 'poison the well' - your opponents are selfish people pursuing selfish ends and so you can't trust anything they say.
Both sides do it and, the sad fact is that both sides have a point and some of those who heavily push one way or the other are indeed in it for the money and do distort the facts and discount good evidence or truss up bad to make their point.
But, just because some greedy, unscrupulous dicks are willing to discount positive results, doesn't mean that all discounted results are actually good results that have been unjustly discounted and just because some other greedy, unscrupulous dicks are willing to inflate or misrepresent neutral or negative results doesn't mean that all positive results are actually invalid.
“...to include approaches that will change the relationship between the two groups,”
So, give them a flower?
... 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.
Paul, the gaping flaw in your argument is that to take the action that you say we should have taken would very likely have incurred enormous costs for little if any benefit. You also seem to think that global warming (or whatever you like to call it) will be overwhelmingly negative. Should any global warming happen there will certainly be benefits to some people, such as increase agriculture further north (Canada, Europe, Asia) and statistics show that the deaths from cold far out-number deaths from heat.
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.
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.
This gives absolutely no hint as to which side of the fence you're on. Well played.
@ Sorry that handle is already taken.
"This gives absolutely no hint as to which side of the fence you're on. Well played."
Good because I dont have a side. I trust in facts and science, I have no interest in joining either cult. Either cult pushing its beliefs would be bad for fact and science and of course the planet.
Why does one have to announce their stand other than believers from both sides will pounce and clobber the poor bastard for not believing one way or the other. This much like the old experiment where a guy stands on a street corner with a blank sign and takes crap from nearly everyone for what's not on the sign.
Can we take legal action against certain "experts" for scientific fraud, after all they seem to benefit from the porkies they tell?
The problem is that I can't see scientific bodies taking such action because it would have a negative impact on most, if not all, of their members because research funding would be cut and reputations trashed. I also can't see governments taking action because the politicians fear what disgruntled brainwashed voters might do.
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.
Remember though, you can't pick and choose. If you don't like these "scientists" with their "method" you need to avoid anything derived from the scientific method. That certainly includes using a computer, which will save the rest of us from having to listen to your tosh.
Ah, the old "if you don't like science, you can't use anything created by science". As much as I loathe the anti-vaxxers, I don't suggest that because they don't trust their doctor's recommendation on vaccinating their children, that they should visit witch doctors or whack jobs that heal using crystals instead of MDs if their child has a broken arm or pneumonia.
The debate for many people is religious, you are either on the side of AGW or you are against it. I guess that's true even for me. Religiously I'm agnostic, and I think that defines my position pretty well on AGW. Maybe if I was strongly religious I'd be on one side or another, either screaming "the end is nigh unless we reform our evil ways!" from the rooftops or claiming it is a gigantic conspiracy to control our economic future.
There's a big difference between something absolutely proven like the efficacy of vaccines, and conclusions based on a combination of proven facts (like CO2's effect) and unproven theories about how the atmosphere works plugged into complex and constantly updated computer models. Even a climate scientist would admit equating the two is unreasonable.
Mathematics and Science approach proof differently. In Mathematics, once an idea is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. We can be sure of this in maths because it deduces statements based on previous statements that are known to be true. Aha you say but what about the first statements. Well these are called axioms and are supposed to be so obvious that they are not required to be proven (yes yes I know, I am sorry to all you mathematicians out there) for those more interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Mathematics, however, is not science. Mathematics is a tool used by science, but is not itself a Science. Generally scientists deal with evidence and mathematicians with proof. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same thing at all. Sometimes if a scientific view is confirmed over a long period of time by lots and lots of evidence it becomes (rather confusingly in my opinion) known as a scientific “fact” and/or scientifically “proved”. What is really meant is that a particular hypothesis has been verified using current evidence. This is the difference between an mathematical and an empirical proof.
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.
"the idea seemed to come from nowhere"
Just because you don't know (or can't be arsed to find out) where an idea comes from doesn't mean it comes from nowhere. The basic physics of greenhouse gases was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and has not been disputed by reputable scientists since. Without Fourier, we might still be struggling to solve partial differential equations and the signal processing problems in mobile phones, so I wouldn't like to argue with him about the greenhouse effect!
If this is the foundation of your belief system Without Fourier, we might still be struggling to solve partial differential equations and the signal processing problems in mobile phones, so I wouldn't like to argue with him about the greenhouse effect!
Then Einstein's belief in Intelligent Design must put you directly into that camp?
"The APGW scam must be really important to somebody."
While all attempts to prevent controls on greenhouse gas emissions must be really important to the fossil fuel industries.
No wonder they've employed the best propagandists, who honed their skills in denying any connection between tobacco and cancer, to spread FUD about AGW, and made massive political contributions to James Inhofe, chair of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who is very obliging about blocking any action.
It is important that we don't go charging lemming-like over the cliff into climate tyranny because some emotional strings have been tugged. Mostly the emotion of "fear", but the important things is to look carefully at the facts, and not let ourselves be bamboozled into foolish actions that might very well have effects that are far worse than anything the climate fear mongers and alarmists have in mind.
If, as much of the science is now indicating, the sun is due for another Maunder Minimum, then we will all be very glad of even the tiny additional greenhouse warming provided by CO2.
When the APGW debate got political, alarm bells went off - that we were probably being conned. Upon further investigation, not only are we being conned for things like carbon taxes and fuel surcharges, but the smart money is probably investing in land closer to the equator while the gullible sell cheap and buy closer to the pole. It is really one of the oldest con-games around.
What a lot of (insert word here)! Fossil fuel companies have been big backers of Greenpeace etc and for many years an Exxon employee (Khesoggi, I think) was active in the writing of IPCC reports. You also seem ignorant about tobacco and cancer although its unclear if you mean for smokers (connection true but in legal action people are allowed to make any defence they wish and in this case there was an obligation to stockholders) or for second-hand smoke (the key studies of which were flawed, as S. Fred Singer observed).
If you have any evidence that CO2 poses a significant danger then try posting that instead of baseless ad hominem attacks, actions that I think are very characteristic of "believers" but missing from the study reported in the article.
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.
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
Remember to 'shut up, and try not to think'
"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"
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.
-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.
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.
"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."
You seem confused about science. You have to prove the theory not the other way around. When the theory is that climate is reduced to such a simple concept as heat is retained by greenhouse gas and more is produced then it is the duty of the theory holder to prove it. Particularly prove why the earth isnt some barren fire-scorched rock in space. It is the duty of the theory holder to demonstrate how the complex web of interactions with various nodes relying on an environment that is already demonstrated to change naturally. Especially when pushing for an extremely damaging rate of economic and social change which will certainly lead to deaths.
"The alternative, doing nothing, may be much, much worse. Hopefully it will be cataclysmic, so suffering may be minimal..."
I believe that was the justification for satisfying the gods by sacrificing people and building monuments. Pretty much the route the MMCC co2 theory religion has gone (obviously not including scientists in that statement).
I'm agnostic on AGW myself (I just wish someone could neutrally investigate the hypothesis) but actually there is a problem with that statement. As I add more silvering on the back of a mirror, the amount of reflected light increases ... until the mirror fully silvered, reflecting 100% of incident light. Thereafter, adding more silvering to the mirror will not increase the amount of light reflected.
Perhaps atomspheric CO2 behaves like this. Anyone who's ever used an IR spectrometer will know that CO2 only captures IR photons in a narrow ranges of wavelength - and perhaps at current CO2 concentrations (or half them, or double them) the atmosphere is already capturing 100% of the IR photons that have those wavelengths. Adding CO2 will, in this case, not increase the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere; those IR photons having the right wavelengths will be retained in the atmosphere anyway (and would be whether we halved or doubled the CO2 concentration), whereas those photons having the other wavelengths will be quite unimpeded by atmospheric CO2 whatever its concentration.
I'm quite aware that this argument only applies to CO2; other greenhouse gases (such as water) have much broader absorption peaks. But AGW was, last time I looked, an argument about CO2.
At what height in the atmosphere is the absorption complete? Will this height be the same at all latitudes, or will there be differences? Amount of radiation absorbed is a function of the amount of radiation. What happens to the absorbed energy? Will it be sequestered in the CO2, or will it be retransmitted at other wavelengths or transferred mechanically to other molecules in the air?
What you are proposing is not a scientific method. You don't start with a cause and claim an effect. You first find an effect then search for a cause. When you have a formula for carbon and temperature, you can then predict an increase. If however the data doesn't fit the model, you can either throw out the model or throw out the data, or perhaps you can massage the data to fit proven scientific theory . . . but by this time an astute observer would have noticed your Josef Stalin tendencies and gone into hiding.
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
...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. :/
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.
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
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
