Animosity toward climate change advocates?

[dgruss23]

Since some people still insist that Grizzly's thread has been hijacked by a discussion of GW evidence, I've started this thread for those that have a burning desire to discuss the reasons for hostility, animosity, anger, annoyance, indifference, fondness, love, ignorance, or any other emotion felt toward AAGW advocates.

As I said in the other thread, if I at times, seem annoyed with AAGW supporters, it is usually a result of my presentation of solid, referenced evidence that contradicts various AAGW claims to which AAGW supporters claim concensus rather than addressing the science.

If you want to know what I mean by solid referenced evidence, please feel free to go to the other thread. This thread is only for discussing the emotions toward AAGW advocates. Please do not discuss the actual scientific evidence here - keep it pure. Keep focused, review your words carefully, and do NOT encourage any diversions by responding to any comments that may deviate from the AAGW emotionalism theme.

There, I've done what I can to right an egregious wrong.

[Glom]

My frustration comes from the one sided depiction of the issue by journalists and politicians. When the ignore all these important issues, I get to this board with the burning urge to put them forward.

But that being said, I don't think I display general animosity towards AAGW advocates specifically. I have ripped it out of the Greens and GP as everyone knows, but that's about general things, not specifically AAGW. AAGW is a symptom. I ripped it out of Sir David King because of his attempts to get sceptics in Russia silenced. I was a bit hostile towards MT because he repeatedly make long posts listing all the environmental changes and blames them on Bush automatically with some ferver in what is a total affirmed consequent. I have condemned RealClimate because it talks crap and parades it as science.

Okay, maybe I do display animosity. But it's not that anyone who comes along as an advocate automatically gets hostility.

Or do I? :-?

[dgruss23]

I have condemned RealClimate because it talks crap and parades it as science.

[jettisoning hand upward like enthusiastic elementary child] Ooh...Ooh ... Do you feel hostility when you read their weak arguments? [/jettisoning hand upward like enthusiastic elementary child]

We might be getting to the core of this animosity issue!

[Grizzly]

But where's the evidence?

----
Diabolus fecit, ut id facerem!
The devil made me do it!

[Disinfo Agent]

You'll find my answers here, where they belong.

[BobK]

I'm of the opinion that as individuals people have a small group of things they are actually sufficiently interested in to acquire more than a passing knowledge. For the rest of their worldly awareness, they form opinions or beliefs based mainly on what is heard most often.

When you're very young many things you learn are through repeatedly hearing something and then testing the truth of what you heard. i.e. "Don't touch the stove, it's hot". You test it anyway. "Don't touch the grill, it's hot". You test it anyway.

From things like these, I think we learn that what we are told repetitively is quite often correct, even if we can't properly test it. A lot of what we personally know, or think we know, we acquired through repetition.

People like to be agreed with. When someone has been repetitively exposed to an idea outside their area of expertise, they tend to take that idea as a belief of their own. Having learned that constant repetition seems to imply correctness, and hearing little which is contradictory, it must be a widely held belief, so they will get little disagreement from others by accepting it at face value. They're simply not interested enough to critically analyze it.

When a person's belief is challenged by an apparently coherent argument, they are being disagreed with, yet have no weapon in their arsenal except the presumed popularity of their belief. Without being able to, or too disinterested to logically refute the argument, what is left but to use illogical appeal to authority or popularity, ad hominems, or simply bury their head and ignore the argument entirely?

The media is only interested in the scary side of the debate. That's what sells and that is what they promote.

A vast group of people develop their belief in catastrophic GW from repetitively hearing only that side. Once formed, they're really not interested in ideas that might upset their belief system.

It really is frustrating to take the time to present a logical argument and get mostly fallacious arguments or ad hominems in response.

For many people AGW is strictly a belief and when beliefs are challenged both sides are capable of unwarranted statements from time to time. It's the nature of the beast.

Frankly, I've always thought it seems rather foolish to be worrying about people 5 generations down the road. People I'll never know and who will never know me. If altruism is your bag, why not direct it toward the people in need that are alive today or only 1-2 generations down the road? Does anyone really think that people 5 generations ago went out of their way to make themselves less comfortable just for our benefit?

In my opinion, CO2 control is a political pork-barrel that the Oil For Fraud people want to wallow in. Nothing more.