they can call this “research” but i would not.
Because they tend to look at facts more objectively?
They have enemies.
Actually you do know. You only need to look at the "scientific" predictions made by the non-deniers say ten years ago and observe that Nantucket and Palm Beach are still very much with us as they were when the predictions were made.
ML/NJ
It really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about global warming - the climate will change as it’s changed for 4 billion years.
What matters is that the “solutions” being proposed by statist maniacs will enslave us and ruin us, and in fact make things worse.
I'd bet that "conservative white males" were also less likely to believe in "the coming Ice Age" that was being marketed in the 70s.
I am the root cause of all of the world’s problems.
I am a white, middle-aged, American male.
Suck it!
ABSTRACT:
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
McCright’s study, “Cool dudes:
Embedding a condescending insult within your study name is not good evidence of a neutral dispassionate researcher.
I have confidence in the substantial evidence of climate change over the vast ages of the Earth - many of which happened before humans were here - or before we engaged in widespread industrial activity.
What I do NOT have confidence in is the self serving climate models that predict catastrophic change based upon human activity.
Earlier in my own lifetime they were predicting Catastrophic Climate Change in the form of global cooling - and mankind, specifically capitalism - was to blame.
Now they are predicting Catastrophic Climate Change in the form of global warming - and mankind, specifically capitalism - is still to blame.
I am a scientist. I know that if e-mails showed I was using a “trick” to “hide the decline” I would be out on my ear, and rightly so, and my work widely discredited in the scientific community.
Somehow climate “scientists” are not held to the same high standards.
They should be.
Right. It has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Whether a theory is viewed as right or wrong is unrelated to whether the theory is right or wrong, just what race you self-identify as.
Once again, a sociologist proves that sociology is not a science.
Why am I a “denier”? Education, logic, and a working set of frontal lobes.
Here is revealed another prejudice. That there is no risk attached to turning our nation over to Al Gore's crowd. In fact there is a HIGHER risk in doing that than doing nothing.
1. I received a rigorous scientific education where I learned to think for myself.
2. A decade later, I applied that capability to politics, when I learned (from author Michael Fumento) that most of the environmental movement (and by association the MSM and liberal politicians) was based on verifiable scientific lies that were obvious to the well-informed.
3. The scientific education that enabled me to be a conservative has also led me to question most of everything coming from the climate change advocates.
(One of the nifty things I learned in my education is that correlation isn’t causation. My being conservative didn’t make me question climate change. My being SMART made be BOTH).
I used to read Scientific American until they got too political.
Now they say that being a climate change denier is akin to being a racist.
As it was also part of their “research”, they noted that LIBERAL white males are the biggest advocates of MMGW theories.
From this it can be concluded that white males do far more science than other racial groups, as well as women. Which has long been pretty well established, so is no breakthrough.
Second, from their results it can be divined that LIBERAL white males are far more likely to embrace, without question, ideas promulgated by other LIBERAL white males. Especially if those ideas might eventually result in financial gain and political power to them and their kind.
And that CONSERVATIVE white males are far more questioning of broad assertions based on tenuous and shifting evidence, speculative theories, and questionable computer models, as well as demands for expensive, uncertain, and authoritarian changes in public policy based on such dubious evidence.
Likewise, their study shows that LIBERAL white males are far more likely to develop *emotional* investments in questionable theories, *and* demands for massive changes to public policy, and to defend these things in the face of all conflicting evidence, no matter how objective and verifiable.
In other words, their study reaches the conclusion that LIBERAL white males are poor scientists.
Yeah. That title isn't biased and inflammatory. This discredited academic hack can screw. The title should read: "White Guys: They Get That Global Warming Is A Scam".
Idiot. (not the poster)No denies the climate’s tendency to change properties; the fossil record alone bears this out. What I, a “conservative, white male”, deny, is a left wing, radical, brain dead, reaction to something that WE should probably be adjusting to instead of the planet..