Two articles worth reading.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...AQQyeqdMaMP7LK67kzeF

https://www.nature.com/article...10&mc_cid=b00e899556

It's not really that difficult to deny denial..

Try it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Two articles worth reading.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...AQQyeqdMaMP7LK67kzeF

https://www.nature.com/article...10&mc_cid=b00e899556

Wow, a regional climatic shift, I guess that means all the science on the global shift ongoing from human causes is wrong.

Y'all are science deniers.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Y'all are science deniers.

Your ignorance of even the simplest concepts is profound.

What YOUR links show is that a natural climatic cycle covering 5,000 years likely had a profound effect on human society within a confined region.

Now try to grasp the plain fact that our activities are forcing an equivalent shift globally within a century, and all in one direction.

Ann the simple fact is none of the liberal bedwetters here can accurately tell us exactly how much humans have contributed to any change in the climate. Is it changing? Sure it is. They simply cannot quantify or prove with any accuracy human contribution to climate change. Moreover they cannot demonstrate how all their efforts would impact climate change in any way. In the absence of such evidence their only real agenda is control.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Ann the simple fact is none of the liberal bedwetters here can accurately tell us exactly how much humans have contributed to any change in the climate. Is it changing? Sure it is. They simply cannot quantify or prove with any accuracy human contribution to climate change. Moreover they cannot demonstrate how all their efforts would impact climate change in any way. In the absence of such evidence their only real agenda is control.

You are just too stupid to be educated, I told you I'm not qualified to teach those who ride the short bus.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Ann the simple fact is none of the liberal bedwetters here can accurately tell us exactly how much humans have contributed to any change in the climate. Is it changing? Sure it is. They simply cannot quantify or prove with any accuracy human contribution to climate change. Moreover they cannot demonstrate how all their efforts would impact climate change in any way. In the absence of such evidence their only real agenda is control.

We can accurately measure how much atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 150 years or so. We also know that CO2 has an effect on climate. Is that not reason enough to try to do something about it?
We can also measure all the other crap we pump into the atmosphere. The fact that we all have to breathe it should be reason enough to try to limit it.

150 years is your measuring period for a 4.6 billion year old planet? Good Lord! So your argument is measuring time since the Industrial Revolution began?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
150 years is your measuring period for a 4.6 billion year old planet? Good Lord! So your argument is measuring time since the Industrial Revolution began?

Bingo.

C02 feeds plants.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Y'all are science deniers.

Your ignorance of even the simplest concepts is profound.

What YOUR links show is that a natural climatic cycle covering 5,000 years likely had a profound effect on human society within a confined region.

Now try to grasp the plain fact that our activities are forcing an equivalent shift globally within a century, and all in one direction.

You clearly didn't read the articles. No doubt too scientific for you.

In not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Is the period of human industrialisation not a reasonable time period to consider, especially as that is the period for which we have the most accurate data on gases which may have an effect on climate?

quote:

You clearly didn't read the articles. No doubt too scientific for you.

I read them. My take on the second one is that it's scientific, but not as relevant as you think towards you point of view (denial). The first article is a denial narrative that's been debunked many times. Of course, the climate scientists take into account the heat islands of cities. It's stupid to think otherwise, or if not stupid it's intentional disinformation, for the specific purpose of climate science denial. The source is a well-known far right climate denial publisher.

Heading: "Meteorologist finds"

That's not plural, for one thing.

Here's a sample definition distinction between meteorologist and a climatologist:

"A meteorologist uses scientific principles to understand, explain, observe or forecast the Earth’s atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere affects the Earth and life on the planet. A climatologist studies weather conditions averaged over a long period of time. Meteorology focuses on short-term weather events lasting up to a few weeks, whereas climatology studies the frequency and trends of those events. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years or longer. Climatologists study the nature of climates locally and globally and the natural and human-induced factors that cause climates to change."

quote:

Of course, the climate scientists take into account the heat islands of cities.

Sure they do. Gotta keep people like you geeked up.

Why would they not take it into account? There are valid studies, readily available on that issue.

For your denial narratives to work, logically, it would have to be that climate scientists are intentionally deceiving us with partial or tainted information. In other words, it would have to be a vast conspiracy theory, with lots of tangents, and willing participants.

That's exactly what your denial narratives do and are.

The fact is that it's one or the other - no middle ground. Either the science is a conspiracy theory based in lies with a mission, or the denial is.

You apparently know that, which is why you look for stuff for affirmation of your belief that science is the culprit. It's couldn't be you.

I think it’s good to think of our earth as living thing and do best we can to minimize our impact on it
At the same time, most of us hate governments extreme measures as we ( D and R’s ) know that governments cannot have unlimited powers, they do screw things up and private industries will come up with best solutions without government’s interference
Governments mandates are for most part idiotic, power hungry nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Why would they not take it into account? There are valid studies, readily available on that issue.

For your denial narratives to work, logically, it would have to be that climate scientists are intentionally deceiving us with partial or tainted information. In other words, it would have to be a vast conspiracy theory, with lots of tangents, and willing participants.

That's exactly what your denial narratives do and are.

The fact is that it's one or the other - no middle ground. Either the science is a conspiracy theory based in lies with a mission, or the denial is.

You apparently know that, which is why you look for stuff for affirmation of your belief that science is the culprit. It's couldn't be you.

All you need to judge the credibility of The Epoch Times, and anybody who uses that as a reference, is look at who owns it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
I think it’s good to think of our earth as living thing and do best we can to minimize our impact on it
At the same time, most of us hate governments extreme measures as we ( D and R’s ) know that governments cannot have unlimited powers, they do screw things up and private industries will come up with best solutions without government’s interference
Governments mandates are for most part idiotic, power hungry nonsense

This is a tough one because I kind of agree but kind of disagree. I have seen both sides of this issue. I live in an area that has huge natural resources like timber, minerals etc. I have seen private companies come in and rape and destroy large amounts of land and walk away with enormous amounts of money and leave an absolute mess. That has caused the government do step in and put rules and regulations to prevent that from happening again. In that case the private company was 100% wrong and the government was correct in saying no more. I have also seen times when the government was wrong and the private companies are the ones doing right.

So my point is that I do not think a blanket statement that companies do right and government does wrong is fair. Each situation can be different and to be perfectly fair I think most companies if given the free choice would put profit over doing things right.

quote:

All you need to judge the credibility of The Epoch Times, and anybody who uses that as a reference, is look at who owns it.

I did look, and I did judge.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1...grp=a&smid=url-share


How The Epoch Times Created a Giant Influence Machine

Since 2016, the Falun Gong-backed newspaper has used aggressive Facebook tactics and right-wing misinformation to create an anti-China, pro-Trump media empire.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
In not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Is the period of human industrialisation not a reasonable time period to consider, especially as that is the period for which we have the most accurate data on gases which may have an effect on climate?

And what about other times when the planet has experienced large increases of CO2 and the climate has changed? It didn’t die did it? Do you honestly believe the climate needs “saving” when you cannot even demonstrate the exact impact of humans on the climate? And what hubris to imagine humans could “save” the planet? Even if reasonable people bought into your hysteria how would efforts in some countries to “save” the planet counter balance China and India and the amount of new coal fired plants they are building? Do you really believe an emerging Indian middle class is gonna go in for EVs? Last Saturday there were about ver 11200 cars at the place I went skiing. The same facility has room for 20 EV charging stations. Where does the infrastructure come for handling all those EVs in need of a charge considering they lose easily a 1/3 of their battery life in such cold climates.Tell me.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
In not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Is the period of human industrialisation not a reasonable time period to consider, especially as that is the period for which we have the most accurate data on gases which may have an effect on climate?

And what about other times when the planet has experienced large increases of CO2 and the climate has changed? It didn’t die did it? Do you honestly believe the climate needs “saving” when you cannot even demonstrate the exact impact of humans on the climate? And what hubris to imagine humans could “save” the planet? Even if reasonable people bought into your hysteria how would efforts in some countries to “save” the planet counter balance China and India and the amount of new coal fired plants they are building? Do you really believe an emerging Indian middle class is gonna go in for EVs? Last Saturday there were about ver 11200 cars at the place I went skiing. The same facility has room for 20 EV charging stations. Where does the infrastructure come for handling all those EVs in need of a charge considering they lose easily a 1/3 of their battery life in such cold climates.Tell me.

I'll type this slowly so maybe you can keep up:
We don't need to "save" the planet; the planet will be here long after we're gone regardless of climate change we force or nuclear war or anything else we manage, and it will still support life, almost certainly a reduced number of species but every niche vacated will eventually be filled with something new, that's what evolution does and has done repeatedly.

What we desperately need to "save" are climatic conditions that will support large human populations, which depend on large-scale agriculture, which depends completely on stable, predictable growing seasons, which are quickly becoming a thing of the past. The warming of the arctic has already weakened the jet stream, which allows the intrusion of arctic air we saw last week. When that happens after emergence entire crops will die, as will happen with hard frosts before harvest.

The planet is not endangered by our stupidity: we are.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
The warming of the arctic has already weakened the jet stream, which allows the intrusion of arctic air we saw last week.

uhm, you do know it generally gets cold in January, and mid-late feb, right?

Climate change is real, and it's happening, frankly, has been happening on earth since BEFORE there was an atmosphere - All the scientist were STUNNED when about week 100 of the 2 week lockdown, that the climate didn't immediately react to hugely less CO2 being emitted --

weird -- huh? how when facts don't line up with an agenda, people throw them away/diminish the facts -

notice i can accept that climate change is real, it gets cold in january (in the N Hemisphere) AND that it's getting hotter -- while today wasn't a record high temp in Dallas, it was really close --

quote:

The planet is not endangered by our stupidity: we are.

Another outstanding quote.

quote:

All the scientist were STUNNED when about week 100 of the 2 week lockdown, that the climate didn't immediately react to hugely less CO2 being emitted --

That's almost funny.

Where did you read that, assuming they "all the scientists" don't report directly to you?

Could it be that they didn't expect to be stunned by that, neither the reduction in emissions and the lack of immediate reaction on climate?

I suspect they just kept on measuring and reporting the facts with little emotional or political attachments.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

All the scientist were STUNNED when about week 100 of the 2 week lockdown, that the climate didn't immediately react to hugely less CO2 being emitted --

That's almost funny.

Where did you read that, assuming they "all the scientists" don't report directly to you?

Could it be that they didn't expect to be stunned by that, neither the reduction in emissions and the lack of immediate reaction on climate?

I suspect they just kept on measuring and reporting the facts with little emotional or political attachments.

Exactly zero scientists were "stunned" because scientists understand the lag time involved between the emission of greenhouse gasses and increased temperatures.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
In not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Is the period of human industrialisation not a reasonable time period to consider, especially as that is the period for which we have the most accurate data on gases which may have an effect on climate?

And what about other times when the planet has experienced large increases of CO2 and the climate has changed? It didn’t die did it? Do you honestly believe the climate needs “saving” when you cannot even demonstrate the exact impact of humans on the climate? And what hubris to imagine humans could “save” the planet? Even if reasonable people bought into your hysteria how would efforts in some countries to “save” the planet counter balance China and India and the amount of new coal fired plants they are building? Do you really believe an emerging Indian middle class is gonna go in for EVs? Last Saturday there were about ver 11200 cars at the place I went skiing. The same facility has room for 20 EV charging stations. Where does the infrastructure come for handling all those EVs in need of a charge considering they lose easily a 1/3 of their battery life in such cold climates.Tell me.

I'll type this slowly so maybe you can keep up:
We don't need to "save" the planet; the planet will be here long after we're gone regardless of climate change we force or nuclear war or anything else we manage, and it will still support life, almost certainly a reduced number of species but every niche vacated will eventually be filled with something new, that's what evolution does and has done repeatedly.

What we desperately need to "save" are climatic conditions that will support large human populations, which depend on large-scale agriculture, which depends completely on stable, predictable growing seasons, which are quickly becoming a thing of the past. The warming of the arctic has already weakened the jet stream, which allows the intrusion of arctic air we saw last week. When that happens after emergence entire crops will die, as will happen with hard frosts before harvest.

The planet is not endangered by our stupidity: we are.

Oh moving the goalposts now? Save climatic conditions? Which conditions and where are they exactly and how you propose to do it? This is genius level stuff you’re putting out so please keep going.

Do a little reading on climate.gov site.
You will see there are still poorly placed weather sites they still use. They also have re-evaluated the way the measured temp from what was done in the 50's onward. By doing so it has made a quarter degree rise in temp recorded. They did not revise the old data when they revised the new recording process.
It is all these things that create the questioning of climate science.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
In not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Is the period of human industrialisation not a reasonable time period to consider, especially as that is the period for which we have the most accurate data on gases which may have an effect on climate?

And what about other times when the planet has experienced large increases of CO2 and the climate has changed? It didn’t die did it? Do you honestly believe the climate needs “saving” when you cannot even demonstrate the exact impact of humans on the climate? And what hubris to imagine humans could “save” the planet? Even if reasonable people bought into your hysteria how would efforts in some countries to “save” the planet counter balance China and India and the amount of new coal fired plants they are building? Do you really believe an emerging Indian middle class is gonna go in for EVs? Last Saturday there were about ver 11200 cars at the place I went skiing. The same facility has room for 20 EV charging stations. Where does the infrastructure come for handling all those EVs in need of a charge considering they lose easily a 1/3 of their battery life in such cold climates.Tell me.

I'll type this slowly so maybe you can keep up:
We don't need to "save" the planet; the planet will be here long after we're gone regardless of climate change we force or nuclear war or anything else we manage, and it will still support life, almost certainly a reduced number of species but every niche vacated will eventually be filled with something new, that's what evolution does and has done repeatedly.

What we desperately need to "save" are climatic conditions that will support large human populations, which depend on large-scale agriculture, which depends completely on stable, predictable growing seasons, which are quickly becoming a thing of the past. The warming of the arctic has already weakened the jet stream, which allows the intrusion of arctic air we saw last week. When that happens after emergence entire crops will die, as will happen with hard frosts before harvest.

The planet is not endangered by our stupidity: we are.

Oh moving the goalposts now? Save climatic conditions? Which conditions and where are they exactly and how you propose to do it? This is genius level stuff you’re putting out so please keep going.

The conditions that have prevailed since the end of the Ice Age you ignoramus, the ones that made agriculture possible to begin with and whose few excursions outside the norms were marked by famine.

Now you’re going back to the lastIceAge or is it the last mini I save? You can do better for the sake of your religion can’t you? You still cannot definitively say what human contribution is to climate change with definitive evidence. Nor can you say delegates any effort by humans could do o impact climate the other way can you?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Now you’re going back to the lastIceAge or is it the last mini I save? You can do better for the sake of your religion can’t you? You still cannot definitively say what human contribution is to climate change with definitive evidence. Nor can you say delegates any effort by humans could do o impact climate the other way can you?

You have been given that information several times but are too dense to understand it.

I missed the part where it was X percent man made, and X percent earth/Sun made.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
150 years is your measuring period for a 4.6 billion year old planet? Good Lord! So your argument is measuring time since the Industrial Revolution began?

Nobody wants to admit there too many fucking {literally} People on the planet to sustain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams1:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
150 years is your measuring period for a 4.6 billion year old planet? Good Lord! So your argument is measuring time since the Industrial Revolution began?

Nobody wants to admit there too many fucking {literally} People on the planet to sustain it.

There is that...

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Ann the simple fact is none of the liberal bedwetters here can accurately tell us exactly how much humans have contributed to any change in the climate. Is it changing? Sure it is. They simply cannot quantify or prove with any accuracy human contribution to climate change. Moreover they cannot demonstrate how all their efforts would impact climate change in any way. In the absence of such evidence their only real agenda is control.

Regardless, why not give it a whirl?
Wouldn't cleaner streams at your place be better for Stripers and salmon and trout? Wouldn't cleaner forests be better for deer and moose? Wouldn't cleaner and more wetlands be before ducks?

For me, for my place I'm happy to give up the two stroke outboard and buy the fourstroke, give up the v/8 and buy the 4cyl or the "Ecoboost". How come you and I can't enjoy hunting moose out of a canoe instead of an ATV?

Come on Man, we don't all need a v10 Ford.

Scott
You seem like a smart guy. We have beautiful water here already and game aplenty. Why not give it a whirl is not the basis for reasonable policy. Cold hard facts should carry the day not fear mongering and desire for power over others. And cold hard facts are what the American Left and the Davos crowd cannot provide.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
In not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Is the period of human industrialisation not a reasonable time period to consider, especially as that is the period for which we have the most accurate data on gases which may have an effect on climate?

And what about other times when the planet has experienced large increases of CO2 and the climate has changed? It didn’t die did it? Do you honestly believe the climate needs “saving” when you cannot even demonstrate the exact impact of humans on the climate? And what hubris to imagine humans could “save” the planet? Even if reasonable people bought into your hysteria how would efforts in some countries to “save” the planet counter balance China and India and the amount of new coal fired plants they are building? Do you really believe an emerging Indian middle class is gonna go in for EVs? Last Saturday there were about ver 11200 cars at the place I went skiing. The same facility has room for 20 EV charging stations. Where does the infrastructure come for handling all those EVs in need of a charge considering they lose easily a 1/3 of their battery life in such cold climates.Tell me.

That's quite a rant.

I fully agree that the climate changes naturally, it's been a lot warmer than it is now and CO2 levels have been a lot higher than they are now.

If you actually take the time to look at what has happened in the past you'd see that these changes have generally taken place gradually over thousands of years, not a couple of hundred years. CO2 levels now are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Something which won't of occurred to you is that over 50% of the O2 we breath comes from marine algae. What effect is banging the atmospheric CO2 levels up, and therefore decreasing ocean ph going to have on this and for that matter on other ocean life. Looks grim for our coral reefs...

What about the millions who live in low lying costal areas and how they are going to cope with increasing flooding due to weather extremes. Meh, screw them , who cares if a few thousand in Bangladesh get drowned now and then, wont affect you...

And by the way China and 125 more other nations produce a bigger slice of the energy they use from renewables than the US does. They have a long way to go but they are at least trying.

On electric cars, look up the market penetration for electric vehicles by country.

In 2022 the biggest purchaser of electric cars was china, by a mile, followed by Europe. Biggest percentage of electric cars on the road by country, no1 Norway, then Iceland, then Sweden, then Denmark, Finland ... see a trend here, all cold places and they get them to work. That you can't, well...

Plenty around when I was skiing last week, and doubtless there will be when I go again next week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...c_car_use_by_country

I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that earth's climate is dynamic, and affected by forces only dimly understood. The question is, if we are capable as a species of introducing factors that further destabilize climate predictability, should we continue to do so, ignore the consequences and "see what happens"?
Regarding the two articles cited, Mr. Watts is associated with the Heartland Institute, which besides its fame as a center for climate change denial earned its bones working with Philip Morris and Big Tobacco to deny the health risks of secondhand smoke. This does not exactly reassure one as to the quality of their "science."
The first thing I noted about the Nature citation was how incredibly poorly the paper was edited, with repeated egregious grammatical and spelling errors. As to the substance, again, no sane person would argue that earth's climate is not in continual flux.
My sense is that anyone who would deny the possibility that dumping millions of tons of methane, CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere practically overnight in earth time might have a serious effect is the same person who would smoke a cigar in a sedan full of children with the windows closed.
Mr. Jensen was such a selfish fuck.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Cold hard facts should carry the day not fear mongering and desire for power over others. And cold hard facts are what the American Left and the Davos crowd cannot provide.

Actually, that says a lot, which is mostly unintended by you.

The facts on climate science are not provided or sourced in the Left or Davos crowd. There is no expectation thereof. The facts relating to climate science are not political. You projected that all on your own, although involuntary.

The messaging about climate science may be political - take Al Gore for example, and the resulting reactionary emotionalism of the Right. But there are many sources of messaging that are valid and not political. The denial messaging disinformation and propaganda machine is definitely political and ideological, and its domain is on the Right in all aspects. Why seize on Al Gore's messaging? It's good fodder - that's why, and the fixation has practically nothing to do with the science.

Fear mongering is something outside the science of climate science, and something that transcends politics, ideology, etc.

The desire for power also is not part of the climate science. That's ideological, political, whatever, it's made up and falsely associated by conspiracy theory, which mostly afflicts deniers looking for an excuse for their denial. Conflating it with climate science is probably a psyco projection.

"Cold hard facts" are also part of the denial narrative. It's the wait and see till we know for sure thing. There are plenty of facts (without the adjectives) in climate science, and combined with evidence points towards probabilities sufficiently founded.

So, with two short sentences you have exposed some of the basic flaws or problems climate science deniers have laid on the world. It's a fabricated layer of problems that are barriers to solutions, and another layer of human causes that science can't resolve.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that earth's climate is dynamic, and affected by forces only dimly understood. The question is, if we are capable as a species of introducing factors that further destabilize climate predictability, should we continue to do so, ignore the consequences and "see what happens"?
Regarding the two articles cited, Mr. Watts is associated with the Heartland Institute, which besides its fame as a center for climate change denial earned its bones working with Philip Morris and Big Tobacco to deny the health risks of secondhand smoke. This does not exactly reassure one as to the quality of their "science."
The first thing I noted about the Nature citation was how incredibly poorly the paper was edited, with repeated egregious grammatical and spelling errors. As to the substance, again, no sane person would argue that earth's climate is not in continual flux.
My sense is that anyone who would deny the possibility that dumping millions of tons of methane, CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere practically overnight in earth time might have a serious effect is the same person who would smoke a cigar in a sedan full of children with the windows closed.
Mr. Jensen was such a selfish fuck.

Y'all get torqued over the reporter but by doing so fail to look at the facts presented. All media is suspect for providing a story, but not the real or complete story. This is another venue.

Is the data wrong? Does NOAA have lots of weather sensors located in inappropriate places? Yes, they do. Do 'scientists' lie? YES, they do. Frequently.

Do I think a lot of this is designed to create hype? Yes, I do. Just look at the responses here. A lot of blindness happening. Your hero Gore has been consistently WRONG.

I question everything because of clear agendas.

Well, Ann, there's a lot more to this climate science denial rabbit hole than most imagine. Your post above says a lot, and much to agree with and understand. But the premise or conclusions of the article is not something to agree with, nor does the content sufficiently support the premise/point. Instead, it and your post above suggests something much bigger.

There's a reason that the conspiracy theories are mostly driving the GOP boat.

I'll post a few links to show what I'm talking about because it's that complicated, yet also that simple. I tried to select articles from good sources, but no paywalls, however there are many good articles on this topic:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c09aa65efc6e84&ei=33

Conspiracy Theories: Why we want to believe when the facts often aren't there
Story by By DAVID KLEPPER, Associated Press • 23h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a72978f116d18f&ei=11

Grave peril of digital conspiracy theories: 'What happens when no one believes anything anymore?'
Story by By DAVID KLEPPER, Associated Press • 23h

https://apnews.com/article/con...5f91856d809ab6e553a8

(see video & article)

Takeaways from the AP’s look at the role of conspiracy theories in American politics and society

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32163899/

The dark side of social movements: social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories

===================================================
===================================================

If you want to see something that demonstrates "theory" but not "conspiracy", here's an example:

It has been claimed (theorized) that our tendencies towards conspiracy theories are a product of evolutionary survival skills, but nowadays has run amuck.

There is a quote falsely attributed to Darwin, but it actually was someone else who said it as a paraphrase of Darwin's work and publishing.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/life...c09aa65efc6e84&ei=69

So, theory builds upon theory - It looks to me like the reasons conspiracy theories are so intrenched in conservative ideology is because change is too challenging to adapt to. They need a crutch, which in reality doesn't help, but just the opposite.