Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?

Just a theory about the personality types who automatically deny the existence of man-made environmental problems. Actually, more than a theory, but I'd like to stay objective here.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?By and large the deniers are people who don鈥檛 actually understand much about the climate 鈥?hence you鈥檒l very rarely find they answer questions that require any degree of comprehension about the climate (even if it鈥檚 got nothing at all to do with global warming). To demonstrate this point, pick some questions at random that actually require some climatic knowledge, and look at how few the skeptics and deniers have been able to answer.



It appears they have a believe that they do know about the climate, and presumably they think they are sufficiently knowledgeable to form an objective opinion on the matter. Sadly it is only too apparent that they don鈥檛 know enough to form an educated opinion.



Another problem is that denialism, by it鈥檚 very nature, precludes the deniers from recognising that they are afflicted by this psychological condition. As a consequence there is a distinct lack of objectivity or rationality, something that is quite apparent to any neutral person but not to the deniers themselves.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
"Another problem is that denialism, by it鈥檚 very nature, precludes the deniers from recognising that they are afflicted by this psychological condition. As a consequence there is a distinct lack of objectivity or rationality, something that is quite apparent to any neutral person but not to the deniers themselves."



In a fairly ironic twist, this statement might actually apply to the person who made it. As a matter of fact, people who accuse other people of having some sort of "condition" often have that very condition.



By the way, I believe there are many man made environmental problems and I do eat animals. I know that kinda knocks your theory but your theory might need modifications to become more accurate.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?There is a certain lifestyle attributed to global warming denialism. As I'm sure everyone is aware of people such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh spout propaganda promoting global warming denialism. These people are in the mainstream right wing media and people listen to them and believe them regardless if they are telling the truth or not. These are the same people who don't trust science, believe evolution does not exist, are religious, are all for killing more animals and polluting the environment for human advancement. Note that this is a generalization and am fully aware that not everyone of their listeners believes like this. However you begin to get some sort of picture what these types of people think.



Andy: 1ppm is equal to roughly 7.7 gigatonnes of CO2.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
It is a joke to counter PC whining. Skeptics are generally people that probably get the joke. Those that don't probably don't realize that it isn't about the animals.



More than a theory but somehow not confirmed in the real world. Sounds like a religion or a doomsday cult to me. In science, not being confirmed means it ranks as unconfirmed speculation at best.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?For the most part, we also tend to be engineers or free thinkers. I mean, all I had to do was actually read the IPCC reports and see the large amount of unproven assumptions that they make. Then they change units on you mid report from ppm to megatons with no conversion factor to compare the two dissimilar units. I could go on, but most AGW supporters will support this position no matter what. They also do every thing that they condemn deniers of doing but since it pushes their agenda it is fine.



Saying all of this, I still believe that we are warming up from the little ice age that started about 900 years ago and ended sometime in the mid 1800's.
I must admit, that sounds like something I've said before. I also like those "PETA Peaple Eating Tasty Animals" bumper stickers.



I'm not a global warming denier, I know our climate is warm and getting warmer, I know that we wouldn't be here today if our climate weren't warm, although it'd be nice if we still had Wooly mammoths, they were probably pretty tasty. Which brings up a question, do you think most AGW believers also believe that a few thousand cavemen hunted them all down, or would global warming, I mean climate change, err global climate disruption be a more plausable reason?



Do you find it odd that people who don't eat meat love to buy vegetable products that are processed to taste like meat?Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
First of all I will answer your question. The answer is NO!



Many of your responders are right. Because I accept the science of global warming and I believe that we need to take action I am labeled a "Leftist." What? I thought that a leftist was a person who favored gay marriage and abortion. What do gay marriage and abortion have to do with global warming?



Then along comes C-Tech. Because I eat meat, I am now a global warming denier.
Oh joy! We are about to be pigeonholed...again. Let's see...

We are obsessed with Limbaugh

We are obsessed with Beck

We believe everything FOX news feeds us.

We are right wingnut christian zealots.

We are too stupid, to understand the science.



And now what? We are also smartasses?



I thought I did answer it, I'm a smartass.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
They are more like Creationists who ignore empirical evidence and dismiss science as either flawed or false.
Personality types who are alarmists: gullible, leftist, and did I mention gullible.
Absolutely NOT! Not all animals are delicious...just most!
Typical stereotyping and prejudice too. And liberals are supposed to be tolerant .
Yeah, ***-holes
I think we're more like the people who say, "You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
Way to generalize. You're no better than they are.

Where would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?

If you had to give a multiaxial diagnosis to Hannibal Lecter, how would you fill it out?



Axis I - mental disorders



Axis II - personality disorders and metal retardation



Axis III - medical health issues



Axis IV - Psychosocial and Environmental Problems



Axis V - overall level of functioningWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis IV_ He's fictional but depicted as a brilliant sociopath/Antisocial personality/Psychopathic type
Axis II- He has full knowledge of rules of society, but chooses consciously to disregard them and even expresses this is because he is superior -Narcissistic Personality disorder.(No Mental retardation which is now called Developmental delay) and Anti Social Personality/Psychopathic type

The guy definite;y has "features"

I sometimes think Axis IV is like a mini Axis II (just my weird observation)
Just guessing I'm not a Therapist or a PsychiatristWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
honestly he is beyond all that......



Though he is a sick bast*rd.....he really is a genius.



He doesnt really have mental disorder i dont think.....he was a doctor and in fact very intelligent.

He just had a thing for human flesh......he functioned fine, his brain was fine, he just had an appetite differnet than most people......BLAH



so maybe axis IV i guess



-________-Where would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis I: None



Axis II: None



Axis III: None



Axis IV: Watching his sister become food for hungry german defectors and eating her himself, albeit unknowingly, really screwed him up



Axis V: Extremely highWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
Axis IV - Psychosocial and Environmental ProblemsWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis IWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
All of the above...

What do people really think environment actually means?

do people not understand that poverty is an environmental problem and do people not understand that environment has far greater menaings than the climate, do people not understand that it is the environment of the human culture that is the cause of poverty and what people are calling climate change which should be called climate fluctuation the greatest environmental concern is the abuse of women and the evolutionary cause of that is directly linked to too much pollution but eh this gets a little too complex for this , but if there is a genric solution to the abuse of females that help humans come to terms with their existence and solve their fears about climates changing would people be intersted in the solution that is beyond Al Gore Al Gore has yet as told us nothng we did not already know what are his solutionsWhat do people really think environment actually means?If you can come up with one big answer to solve the problems of the climate ,poverty , abused woman , pollution and humans coming to terms with existence and Al Gore i would be more then happy to listen to you . But as far as i can see we cant even come up with one solution on either one of those subjects that we can all agree on so make it goodWhat do people really think environment actually means?environment is where we live and how we live, and we should try too take care of both.What do people really think environment actually means?en路vi路ron路ment (n-vrn-mnt, -vrn-) KEY



NOUN:



1.The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.

2.The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms, especially:

a)The combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, and survival of organisms: "We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism" (Paul Brooks).

b)The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.

3.Computer Science

a)The entire set of conditions under which one operates a computer, as it relates to the hardware, operating platform, or operating system.

b)An area of a computer's memory used by the operating system and some programs to store certain variables to which they need frequent access.

Thesaurus: synonyms for environment

One problem with the Environmental Protection Act?

It's unconstitutional.

government auctions

Finding Nemo Environmental Question?

The main environmental issue presented in this movie is people removing wild animals from their natural environments. In this case, Nemo is taken from the reef by the dentist and placed in the office fish tank. Describe in detail three problems this change could cause Nemo and other animals like him. Also, list five other things Darla (The dentists niece) could have gotten for her birthday that would have been better presents then Nemo.Finding Nemo Environmental Question?"list five other things Darla (The dentists niece) could have gotten for her birthday that would have been better presents then Nemo."



1) a flamethrower

2) drugs

3) a time-travelling unicorn

4) a mountain made of clams

5) drugs.Finding Nemo Environmental Question?If anything, I'd question the size difference between Dory and Nemo's dad and not the enviromental change

Clown fish are tiny tiny things compared to the fish that dory is



It's just a cartoon though, so I guess it doesn't matter :)Finding Nemo Environmental Question?Sounds like you're trying to have us write you an essay...

Environmental science problem...please help me!?

A herd of caribou on Edwardian Island was measured in 1959 to be 20 animals and the herd was growing at a steady rate of 10% annually. An expedition returned to Edwardian Island in 1994. Assuming the dynamics of the herd have not changed, how many caribou will there be? Show how you arrive with your answer.Environmental science problem...please help me!?It's a simple interest problem, assuming that the island is large enough to support a large herd.

How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?

over resent years car manufacteres have been improving the performace of cars and the way it uses pertrol so what is being used in them should be less toxic in this case or will cars in the future be totally using biofuel if so how will this effect the enviroment in the future or is really there are far to many cars on the roads already and thats the real problem or is it an excuss to put the prise of petrol upHow environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Cars are indeed much more eco-friendlier than it used to be. If you ever watch old movies people used to commit suicides by running their cars with the garage doors closed. If you tried that NOW you just get a head ache (if that much).



But Bio-Fuel isn't cleaner, it is just re-newable energy source - so the theory is it is better. That is yet to be proven. Either way it does NOT solve CO2 problem (see blow). It only solves the problems of OIL coming from the troubled Middle East region.



===



The new problem is that whenever you burn any kind of fuel, it produce CO2 and that is green house gas (meaning it warms up the planet). So while it is cleaner (free from sulfur and nitrogen compounds), it still harms the earth - by warming it. So you take that and multiply it by millions of cars and you get global warming.



So any real eco-friendly energy has to eliminate CO2 also. For that we have to eliminate any kind of combustion (fire).



===

As for the prices, oil companies will take any kind of EXCUSE to hike up the price. They don't need just this crisis.



Good Question - Good Luck.How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Mordern cars get more and more environmentally friendly as they have to conform to ever increasing emissions laws. e.g. In Europe all new cars must be Euro IV compliant and Euro V will come into affect at some point which will be even more strict.



Biofuel can be argued to not be an alternative as the volume of plants cut down to produce it has an adverse effect on the environment and actually contributes to increased CO2 in itself.



Petrol prices going up are largely due to supply and demand. Various things have has a short term impact on prices recently which has driven the barrel of a price of oil up significantly. OPEC can control this to some extent though.



Governments don't help with the increased prices as they see fuel duty as an easy target, but at the same time do little to stop people using their cars in ways of better public transport.How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Bio fuel is not the overall answer. while it allows a car to reduce its output of harmful emissions the cost in providing that fuel is bad for the planet too.

There are better alternatives but all have drawbacks or are not cost effective.

alcohol as used in Argentina etc will give toxic free emissions and allow less wear on an engine but we cannot supply as per Bio fuel enough for everybody.

The way forward at the moment is still being developed with things such as the hydrogen fuel cell but is not yet thought to be commercially viable etc.

an in between offering is best at the moment such as the 'Prious' car which uses both an engine and electric motors and a battery to assist and work between them to reduce overall emissions. again it has a slight higher fuel usage than its petrol equivalent so it's till an open game as what is best. time will tell.