Why do people deny science?

[SSDD]

There, fixed. That's how "Peer review" works

AGW, the only "Science" that is magnetically repelled from the laboratory

There was far more hard evidence in support of phrenology than exists foir AGW.

At least phrenologists had the basic anatomy right...the energy budget that forms the basis for climate science is nothing more than an ad hoc construct designed explicitly to create an AGW industry.

 

[skookerasbil]

The science hobbyists in here are appalled that the rest of the world is "meh" about global warming!!! It is a hoot to watch these handful of climate OC's in here carry on like some crusaders at the head of this awareness wave thats never coming, ever.

These people never acknowledge that costs matter in the real world and its a slam dunk that in the real world, we're not going back to 19th century energy now or any time in the future. So you can talk about people not understanding the science until the cows come home but its not going to add up to dick.........ever. Because the rest of the world can connect the dots.



In yesterdays Forbes........


5/26/2013

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin....as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.



Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.



To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes



The climate OC's need to recognize its not 2006 anymore.


Time for Plan B.

 

[Bfgrn]

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

The human fingerprint in global warming

The skeptic argument...

It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)

What the science says...

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

The human fingerprint in global warming

 

[skookerasbil]

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

The human fingerprint in global warming

The skeptic argument...

It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)

What the science says...

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

The human fingerprint in global warming

Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......

 

[DarkLion]

Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe

 

[skookerasbil]

Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe

Because people with real responsibilities in life dont want to be paying double for their electricity.

As Ive said on here a number of times......people will embrace the warmist narrative when Alaska has 3 weeks straight of 70 degees in mid-January and not a moment sooner. Its just the way it is.......otherwise, youd have tens of millions more people heading to Vegas and Atlantic city all the time to drop lots of coin. The masses dont want to open their wallet wide based upon a hail Mary pass guess.

 

[Bfgrn]

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

The human fingerprint in global warming

The skeptic argument...

It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)

What the science says...

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

The human fingerprint in global warming

Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......

In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea?

Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters. The biggest polluters on the planet. Can you fathom they might have a monetary interest in undermining science??

These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Are you really THAT obtuse???

 

[Papageorgio]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

And the left ignores science in issues such as when life forms in a mother's womb.

 

[Sunshine]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

I have studied as much science as any person who is not an actual scientist. In order to become a nurse where I went to school, one must take and graduate with enough science to have an 'area' in science. In other words, that is a type of minor. I think there is some evidence that the planet is changing. But the science simply isn't there to prove that humans are causing it. Ice ages have happened before. Continents have shifted. And there were few if any people present when it happened. We have only been keeping record of temperature since the invention of the thermomenter, and given that the ancients built observatories, and prayed and sacrificed human beings to the sun to insure it would return or to have bountiful crops, I simply do not believe that they recorded anything beyond the global category of the seasons. Certainly not temperatures.

There are more people on the planet now than there has ever been. Those numbers certainly give humans the ability to sully the environment. But I learned in Microbiology that things which are not currently biodegradable can become biodegradable as bacteria mutate and figure out how to consume those things. We are confining our wate to landfills as much as possible. I don't think we have figured out exactly the best way to handle medical and nuclear waste, but we are trying. The US is not the only polluter. Beijing was the only place I have ever seen brown air. China has very rich coal deposits and having just come out of feudalism themselves, the Chinese are not going to allow themselves to slip back to a primitive way of living. We Americans are not going to either. And I daresay that you, yourself are wasting resources just doing the Crusader Rabbit number on the internet. Energy would be saved, and its impact on the enviornment would be lessened if you logged off, shut down the computer and never cranked it back up. Certainly this political chewing gum pastime is not a necessity for you. But, yet, you engage in it all the while expecting others to give up necessities.

I learned from my parents who lived through the Great Depression to live frugally, and even I do not live with as little waste has they had. They simply didn't waste anything, not even the tablespoon of crowder peas left in the bottom of the bowl. Someone had to consume it. But when I eat meat, I remind myself the sacrifice that animal made and I either eat it all or I save it for a neighborhood dog to consume.

Why do you lash out at others, based on such little knowledge of people in general and science in particular. Going back to the Stone Age will not further the preservation of the planet, and given the mere logistics of living, would likely hinder that preservation.

 

[Saigon]

Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe

That's not a bad take on things; not bad at all.

There is also a VERY clear link between denial and extreme right wing politics. At least oneof deniers here has claimed that Conservatism is not right wing!

 

[skookerasbil]

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

The human fingerprint in global warming

The skeptic argument...

It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)

What the science says...

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

The human fingerprint in global warming

Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......

In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea?

Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters. The biggest polluters on the planet. Can you fathom they might have a monetary interest in undermining science??

These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Are you really THAT obtuse???

Beyond obtuse s0n......FTMFW I might add.


In our country, the people decide and they've sided overwhelmingly that they like the 2nd ammendment and reject having to open their wallets for the green energy fraud.


evidently s0n........the obtuse are in the distinct majority = winning.


Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas ( ummm......those are fossil fuels last time I checked)



Indeed......climate science is closer to philosophy than science. And people who are obtuse do consider costs!!!!

 

[Sunshine]

Do feel free to post all links from antiquity showing that the last ice age and continental shifts were caused by man. I await them with bated breath! Also feel free to prove the connection of this 'denial' with extremists. We recently did a poll on here which showed that the forum conservatives were more educated than the forum liberals. So, there is a direct link with regard to critical thinking and knowledge in general. I can certainly buy that the more educated people of the world are less likely to run around like this:

!!

 

[Saigon]

Skooks-

Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas

Wind, Solar, & Natural Gas Up In Europe — Coal & Nuclear Down

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/13/wind-solar-natural-gas-up-in-europe-coal-nuclear-down/

 

[Sunshine]

Here are the top 4 enviornmental extremist groups:

Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to returnto good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”

Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...ntal-extremist-groups/742#riqQ1Z7bqIj1Y8EZ.99 Movement “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to returnto good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”
Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups

Earth First! “To put it simply, the Earth must come first.” This sums up the basic ideology of ‘Earth First!ers. Earth First! is a radical environmentalist group that believes anything must be done in order to protect mother earth. Members of the group believe in biocentrism, the belief that every life of every species is equally valuable.


Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...ntal-extremist-groups/742#hREUqEUEJzGY5ppg.99

Greenpeace Greenpeace started in 1970, when activists from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wanted to stop a planned nuclear test in Alaska. The test was not prevented, but it laid the groundwork for the Greenpeace organization.
Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups

ELF, ALF, RCALB, ARM, the Justice Department, and all other associated groups

The Earth Liberation Front (ELF); the Animal Liberation Front (ALF); the Revolutionary Cells—Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB); the Animal Rights Militia (ARM); the Justice Department (not the government’s). These are all animal and environmental extremist groups. Are they all basically the same movement under different names? Most likely

Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups

Ted Kaczynski the 'unabomber' also had enviornmental issues.


People on the right are not environmental radicals, it is the left where the radicals reside. Those on the right are more about things like improved standard of living and productivity that furthers that goal.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe

That's not a bad take on things; not bad at all.

There is also a VERY clear link between denial and extreme right wing politics. At least oneof deniers here has claimed that Conservatism is not right wing!

Saigon, I strongly believe there is also a VERY clear link to neurological and psychological elements of the conservative brain that explain their thinking, or should I say FEAR. Conservatives have larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the center of the brain often associated with anxiety, fear and emotions.

Intolerance of Ambiguity

Intolerance of doubt or ambiguity is another measured trait that has been found to strongly correlate with subsequent predictions of conservative thought and behavior. Dislike of uncertainty leads to dichotomous thinking styles (good and evil, black and white types of stereotyping of both people and issues, denial of complexity, and intolerance for any idea that there is no absolutes in terms of dealing with social issues).

Intolerance of ambiguity constituted a general personality variable that related positively to prejudice as well as to more general social and cognitive variables. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity are significantly more often given to dichotomous conceptions of the sex roles, of the parent-child relationship, and of interpersonal relationships in general. They are less permissive and lean toward rigid categorization of cultural norms. Power–weakness, cleanliness–dirtiness, morality–immorality, conformance–divergence are the dimensions through which people are seen. . . . There is sensitivity against qualified as contrasted with unqualified statements and against perceptual ambiguity; a disinclination to think in terms of probability.

Intolerance of ambiguity has been defined as:

"the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat". Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliche´s and stereotypes.

The consequences of this tendency towards intolerance lead to dogmatically sticking with a single solution, disregarding all contrary evidence that might introduce ambiguity, or any of those troubling shades of grey, and a tendency to think in terms of ‘good and evil' (much as people are sorted into rigid catagories such as ‘saved and unsaved' or ‘saint or sinner' by the religious right), and a tendency to jump to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been accumulated and then rigidly stick with a half thought out solution through thick and thin, while remaining closed to new experience or ideas. The researchers describe the consequences of such rigidity in thinking as,

Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early selection and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in the same person, acceptance of attitude statements representing a rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid dichotomizing into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining closed to familiar characteristics of stimuli.

 

[Sunshine]

Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe

That's not a bad take on things; not bad at all.

There is also a VERY clear link between denial and extreme right wing politics. At least oneof deniers here has claimed that Conservatism is not right wing!

Saigon, I strongly believe there is also a VERY clear link to neurological and psychological elements of the conservative brain that explain their thinking, or should I say FEAR. Conservatives have larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the center of the brain often associated with anxiety, fear and emotions.

Intolerance of Ambiguity

Intolerance of doubt or ambiguity is another measured trait that has been found to strongly correlate with subsequent predictions of conservative thought and behavior. Dislike of uncertainty leads to dichotomous thinking styles (good and evil, black and white types of stereotyping of both people and issues, denial of complexity, and intolerance for any idea that there is no absolutes in terms of dealing with social issues).

Intolerance of ambiguity constituted a general personality variable that related positively to prejudice as well as to more general social and cognitive variables. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity are significantly more often given to dichotomous conceptions of the sex roles, of the parent-child relationship, and of interpersonal relationships in general. They are less permissive and lean toward rigid categorization of cultural norms. Power–weakness, cleanliness–dirtiness, morality–immorality, conformance–divergence are the dimensions through which people are seen. . . . There is sensitivity against qualified as contrasted with unqualified statements and against perceptual ambiguity; a disinclination to think in terms of probability.

Intolerance of ambiguity has been defined as:

"the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat". Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliche´s and stereotypes.

The consequences of this tendency towards intolerance lead to dogmatically sticking with a single solution, disregarding all contrary evidence that might introduce ambiguity, or any of those troubling shades of grey, and a tendency to think in terms of ‘good and evil' (much as people are sorted into rigid catagories such as ‘saved and unsaved' or ‘saint or sinner' by the religious right), and a tendency to jump to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been accumulated and then rigidly stick with a half thought out solution through thick and thin, while remaining closed to new experience or ideas. The researchers describe the consequences of such rigidity in thinking as,

Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early selection and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in the same person, acceptance of attitude statements representing a rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid dichotomizing into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining closed to familiar characteristics of stimuli.

Post a list of all the right wing environmental radicals.

 

[Bfgrn]

Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......

In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea?

Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters. The biggest polluters on the planet. Can you fathom they might have a monetary interest in undermining science??

These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Are you really THAT obtuse???

Beyond obtuse s0n......FTMFW I might add.


In our country, the people decide and they've sided overwhelmingly that they like the 2nd ammendment and reject having to open their wallets for the green energy fraud.


evidently s0n........the obtuse are in the distinct majority = winning.


Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas ( ummm......those are fossil fuels last time I checked)



Indeed......climate science is closer to philosophy than science. And people who are obtuse do consider costs!!!!

Now you are moving from obtuse to a lying sack of shit.

Most Americans, including half of all gun owners, say it is possible to enact new laws without infringing on gun rights, and overwhelming majorities support expanded background checks at gun shows and for online gun sales, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings come as the Senate prepares for its first votes on new gun legislation this week, in what will provide an early test of strength between the influence of the gun lobby vs. the power of public opinion, at least when it comes to background checks.

The proposal for broader background checks is the only one of the three major provisions tested in the survey to draw broad bipartisan public support. Two other restrictions up for consideration this week — nationwide bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips — get majority support from Democrats and independents but are opposed by majorities of rank-and-file Republicans.

Washington Post

But don't feel too bad scooter, you are the only one with shit of your tongue.

 

[Sunshine]

Ahhhhhhhhh............ the peaceful and knowldgeable left! So adept at debating! NOT! They really are just adept at being abusive.

Hi, you have received -276 reputation points from Bfgrn.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Why can\'t you debate you ******* ****? Back at ya you PEA brain.

Regards,
Bfgrn

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[Katzndogz]

Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical. The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s. What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does. That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.

 

[Sunshine]

Post a list of all the right wing environmental radicals.

I'm waiting. Well maybe it will be here after my morning walk.