A comparison of the two links shows that billionaires have supposedly donated $120 million to the cause of climate denying over ten years while the WWF received $41 million in public funding just last year.
You're comparing apples and oranges. $120 million was spent to specifically fund climate change denial campaigns, while the WWF funds are mostly spend (84%) on actual conservation programs. The other 16% is split between fundraising and administration. You'd need to find the amount of money that WWF spends on climate change advocacy campaigns to make a reasonable comparison. Otherwise you need to compare BP's $400 billion in revenues per year to the $600 million in revenues that the WWF gets per year.
The situation actually looks lopsided in the other direction when you're making reasonable comparisons.
These deep pocketed organizations which employ tens of millions of people and have budgets, which can range into the trillions of dollars, can easily outspend the entire fossil fuel industry. And my take in the climate change debate is that they have done so.
Exactly, what percentage of those budgets are spent on climate change advocacy?
My take is that you are desperately clinging to any excuse you can find.
I don't think those are current numbers (maybe they're from 2008? According to VG Chartz, they have the Xbox 360 at 3rd place with 10.26, it's behind the original Xbox and the PS2. The PS3 is in 6th place (4 and 5 are Gamecube and Playstation, respectively) with 9.14, I would expect the PS3 numbers to be a bit lower because there were actually quite a few people who bought them to be blue ray players that can also "do other stuff". I am surprised that that the Wii came in as number 7, I thought it would be lower, I had heard the attach rate for it was not-so-good.
Regardless, it's as close to fact as it can be that Microsoft has lost $3 billion so far on their Entertainment division (those numbers are from Microsoft's financial reports). I think someone else pointed out that they are currently making about $300-400 million a year from the division now, so it'll "only" be about 10 years before it becomes net profitable, assuming the numbers hold relatively steady.
They might be able to power through this by sheer might, but what company wants to burn that amount of capital and goodwill just for marketshare?
It's even worse than that, because it's temporary marketshare. Every generation provides another opportunity to have your marketshare stolen by a new (or old) contender. The lock-in is marginal because the only thing that might carry-over from generation to generation is your trophies and achievements for games you don't (probably can't) play anymore.
I never knew a libertarian who stated that all Government is bad, and that capitalism is always good.
I have. I have seen many state this over and over. Maybe you have selective memory or maybe you've had different experiences.
Libertarians are not anarchists period.
Some are, although to be fair most anarchists don't like libertarians, I remember reading "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants use the government to control his slaves".
As for Government intervention, if a problem is large enough, I don't as a libertarian see an issue with a massive Government project.
Congratulations, you claim to not be insane.
If a meteor is coming towards the Earth and the proof is easy to see, I would be the first to support massive Government spending to attempt to save the planet.
Although, you have to realise that there definitely would be libertarians who claimed the asteroid didn't exist, that the scientists were faking it to get grant money or that the whole thing was secretly an attempt to put a Marxist world government in place. Also I'm a bit sceptical of claims like that given the history of Anthony Watts refusing to honour his promise to accept the results of the Best study.
You expect us to believe and trust you and others like you when all along every prediction and projection even has ended up being wrong.
Typically, climate scientists don't make predictions, they tend to make projections based on specific criteria. The difficult is they can't predict random natural variation, and the random noise dominated the yearly trend over short periods, however, the projections have been reasonably accurate given the difficulties.
It's below the long term average (by a million square km), and there are exactly two data points, so only a fool would consider that an upward trend. Also the years with lower ice extents are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
You have to remember for the libertarians (the Heartland Institute's branch anyway) it's not really about the science it's about defending their ideology from an existential challenge. They believe that government is always bad and capitalism always good. The very idea of capitalism causing a massive global problem that can only be resolved by government intervention is unthinkable and thus must be false. The facts be damned, because they know the "The Truth of Capitalist Libertarianism" they know that AGW can not true.
Also, the Heartland Institute is funded by the true believers, so they will fight this to the last breath because both their identities and their jobs depend on it.
Sounds like a good reason to me. Of course, I don't want to spend an extra 30 minutes on the road because some people suddenly forget how to drive because it's snowed.
Maybe your job or employer doesn't let you telecommute?
The problem is there is no evidence that the regulations would be "massive", cause "higher unemployment", appreciabl increase costs, or reduce progress. British Columbia, for example, implemented a carbon tax and it has reduced emissions substancially and had neglible impact on employment, prices or progress while competing with other North American jurisdictions that don't have a carbon tax.
Really, the libertarian alarmist paranoia on this issue is a bit much.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I have, many times, right here on Slashdot.
CO2 is much higher than 15 years ago but temperatures remain pretty flat.
That's internal variability for you, it always messes up the short term trends. It's important to understand that you can subdivide any noisy graph into sections where the trend lines are increasing, flat or descending regardless of the overall direction, it's the very reason that cherry-picked time periods can be highly misleading. We are currently in a La Nina dominated period which pushes more warming into the ocean, when we switch back to an El Nino dominated period (like the 90s), atmospheric temperatures will appear to rise more rapidly than the average rate (because just the switch from La Nina to El Nino will increase atmospheric surface temperatures by around 1 degree).
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
First of all, that was posted to Watts Up, which makes it highly suspect, Watts is very uncritical about anything that supports his point of view. Second, the IPCC reports estimate that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would contributes between 2 and 4 degrees of warming (which, I think, includes known feedbacks like water vapour increase), it would then take another doubling of that value to get another 2C to 4C of warming. I think the article you linked to uses the largely discredited estimate of 1C per doubling, and I suspect it doesn't include any of the known immediate feedbacks (like the water vapour feedback).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and the claims that global warming due to CO2 will be catastrophic don't seem to be proven.
The primary problem is less likely to be "catastrophic" warming and more likely to be significantly inconveniencing warming. The kind that will cost many trillions of dollars to adapt to which, of course, will lead to higher taxes and possibly lower standards of living. It's estimated to be less expensive (by several trillion dollars) to reduce emissions and shift to alternative power sources than to actually adapt to the changes.
For example, the "hot spot" seems to be missing.
According to the explanation on Skeptical Science, the hot spot is likely to be "missing" simply because it's actually very difficult to measure the termperature of an indistinct patch of air in the upper atmosphere. You can read the linked page for the detailed explanation.
Of course I hope global warming is overrated, because the world is still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If the consequences really will be dire, we will find out.
I hope so too, because it does seem like we're going to find out.
There are no Polar Bears drowning and the ice sheets are bigger.
According to the WWF, there are 19 distinct populations of polar bears. 7 out of 19 populations are declining, 5 out of 19 populations are stable, and the rest there's not enough evidence to determine population status. They also list climate change as one of the primary threats to the polar bear population. You may be technically correct though, in that the polar bears tend to starve to death (or die from malnutrition complications) rather than actually drowning.
I did not write "if they don't feel as I do they are dishonest." What I wrote was that if THEY are honest, they will reach the obvious conclusion. The difference may be small, but it exists and it is important.
Actually, I don't think the difference exists and even if it did, it wouldn't be important. The end point is dismissing any opinion that is contrary to yours because it is contrary to your opinion.
Very obviously I was stating an opinion, but it is an honest one.
You may believe it, but it is not an honest opinion, it's a ad hominem. It probably means your rationality has been compromised by an emotional response.
he site carries nothing but articles about global warming, and SUPPORTS only one side of that argument. On the whole site. So, "skeptical" it ain't.
I'm not sure you understand what a sceptic is. It's not about refusing to pick a side in an argument, it's about looking at the evidence to find out what's true. The fact that they support "one side of that argument" has less to do with bias, and more to with the simple fact that all of the evidence is on that side of "the argument".
Using Wikipedia's number from the Carbon cycle article (which are from 2000):
How much carbon is contained in the top inch of soil?
Approximately 1500 GT (amount of carbon in soil) / 7 (average soil depth) = 214 GT world wide.
How much carbon (at a rate of 400ppm) is contained in the atmosphere?
Approximately 720 GT
How much has to be sequestered to reach pre-industrial levels?
Approximately 240 GT*
It still seems a bit fantastic. Especially the claim that if all U.S. beef were raised that way it would solve climate change. After all, the U.S. represents approximately 1.9% of the earth surface. To sequester the required 240 GT of carbon, you'd need to add more than 52 inches of top soil to the entire country.
Never the less I learned something new today, this managed intesive rotational grazing could be an important tool for stabilizing the climate.
* Actually this number is considerably larger, the Ocean will release additional carbon into the air slowing the fall of carbon levels just as it slows the rise of carbon levels. The ocean contains approximately 38,400 GT of carbon, so that could be a lot of top soil.
Without any long term baseline for comparison it's hard to judge what type of cycles affect ice formation and whether the current trends are normal or irregular.
This is true, however we have some understanding of the physical reasons that are driving the changes, and no reason to believe those factors will change any time soon. We know that the CO2 concentration in the air has increased, which traps more heat in the atmosphere and the ocean, we also know that ice loss is a self-reinforcing trend through loss of albedo. So while it could, in theory, be a cyclical variation, there is also no evidence to suggest that it is. On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that the ice loss is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years.
Just to be clear, a new record setting minimum (or maximum) extent is a significant event. In the last 30 years, there have been 8 new record minimum lows (1981, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2012) and only 1 record minimum high (1983). You don't see anyone going about record highs values because there haven't been any and there likely won't be one for a very long time. However, if we the yearly sea ice minimum did hit a new record high, it would be very big news.
That graph isn't contemplating extended climate changes, it's contemplating the reaction of a group of people who herald every rise as monumental victory and dismiss every fall as a temporary anomaly.
When it starts getting too expensive, the politicians will begin handing out "exemptions", you know, for the really poor, for the children, etc.
Actually, most revenue neutral carbon tax systems, pay out a per-person subsidy based on the revenues collected by the tax. The poorest people in each nation would, by definition, benefit from those programs so there's no reason to hand out exemptions.
And at the end of the day you'll be back to square one, only worse since you will not have addressed the real problem.
Clearly you think the real problem is too many people, but we have other related problems that a carbon tax would address. For instance, it should provide an economic incentive for making changes and performing research that reduces the population's impact on the planet.
Yes, 15 years ago MS was "evil" for bundling a web browser with an OS at no extra charge (the horrors!)
You obviously don't have to work with anything on the web, because the pain inflicted by Microsoft on the countless web developers over the years is still fresh and ongoing for many. There are quire a few people who are only a few more "It doesn't work in IE6"s away from a murderous rampage. That's also ignoring everything else Microsoft has pulled in the 15 years since.
Sony crippled their own products *after you had already bought them* and you call them *less* hostile? You're either insane or very, very biased. Sony are playing you for a fool, and you're lapping it up.
I have yet to see anyone say Sony is an Angel, but the truth is most people didn't use the Other OS feature, and for those that didn't the change didn't do anything to cripple what they use the PS3 for which is usually either watching movies, playing games, or both. There are things I don't like about the changes Sony has made over the life of the PS3, but frankly, Microsoft seems to be worse in just about every way that matters to me. On the other hand, calling someone an idiot, a fool, and insane for not agreeing with your opinion is juvenile and belligerent.
It's not just any strong belief, after all, I don't think there are too many people who are extremely violent because really orchids are the best kind of flower. I think the proper word is ideology. The kind of violence you are referring to requires a strong set of beliefs that reinforce each other and it requires an enemy ideology (or ideologies). The violence is justified by fear and/or hatred of the enemy.
It doesn't matter whether the enemy is libertarianism, collectivism, capitalism, Islam, religion, athieism, liberalism, progressives, conservatism, environmentalism, industrialism, or people with different colored skin. Some people will try to marshal fear and hatred to enhance their own power, and intentionally or not, it will spawn violence. These people will routinely used cherry-picked facts or quotes to justify their position, sometimes ignoring the obvious message to focus on minutae that can justify their current activities. They may do it consciously to manipulate others or unconsciously to justify their behaviour, but tiny little facts that match their ideology will be found to be more important than the massive important ones that contradict it.
Slashdot Mirror
A comparison of the two links shows that billionaires have supposedly donated $120 million to the cause of climate denying over ten years while the WWF received $41 million in public funding just last year.
You're comparing apples and oranges. $120 million was spent to specifically fund climate change denial campaigns, while the WWF funds are mostly spend (84%) on actual conservation programs. The other 16% is split between fundraising and administration. You'd need to find the amount of money that WWF spends on climate change advocacy campaigns to make a reasonable comparison. Otherwise you need to compare BP's $400 billion in revenues per year to the $600 million in revenues that the WWF gets per year.
The situation actually looks lopsided in the other direction when you're making reasonable comparisons.
These deep pocketed organizations which employ tens of millions of people and have budgets, which can range into the trillions of dollars, can easily outspend the entire fossil fuel industry. And my take in the climate change debate is that they have done so.
Exactly, what percentage of those budgets are spent on climate change advocacy?
My take is that you are desperately clinging to any excuse you can find.
The IMF has a report that pegs the total world-wide subsidies to fossil fuels at about $1.9 trillion per year.
I don't think those are current numbers (maybe they're from 2008? According to VG Chartz, they have the Xbox 360 at 3rd place with 10.26, it's behind the original Xbox and the PS2. The PS3 is in 6th place (4 and 5 are Gamecube and Playstation, respectively) with 9.14, I would expect the PS3 numbers to be a bit lower because there were actually quite a few people who bought them to be blue ray players that can also "do other stuff". I am surprised that that the Wii came in as number 7, I thought it would be lower, I had heard the attach rate for it was not-so-good.
Regardless, it's as close to fact as it can be that Microsoft has lost $3 billion so far on their Entertainment division (those numbers are from Microsoft's financial reports). I think someone else pointed out that they are currently making about $300-400 million a year from the division now, so it'll "only" be about 10 years before it becomes net profitable, assuming the numbers hold relatively steady.
They might be able to power through this by sheer might, but what company wants to burn that amount of capital and goodwill just for marketshare?
It's even worse than that, because it's temporary marketshare. Every generation provides another opportunity to have your marketshare stolen by a new (or old) contender. The lock-in is marginal because the only thing that might carry-over from generation to generation is your trophies and achievements for games you don't (probably can't) play anymore.
The conclusion might be premature, but if they are correct, well what does that make you?
A sceptic? I don't care what you're trying to prove two data points don't make a trend.
I never knew a libertarian who stated that all Government is bad, and that capitalism is always good.
I have. I have seen many state this over and over. Maybe you have selective memory or maybe you've had different experiences.
Libertarians are not anarchists period.
Some are, although to be fair most anarchists don't like libertarians, I remember reading "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants use the government to control his slaves".
As for Government intervention, if a problem is large enough, I don't as a libertarian see an issue with a massive Government project.
Congratulations, you claim to not be insane.
If a meteor is coming towards the Earth and the proof is easy to see, I would be the first to support massive Government spending to attempt to save the planet.
Although, you have to realise that there definitely would be libertarians who claimed the asteroid didn't exist, that the scientists were faking it to get grant money or that the whole thing was secretly an attempt to put a Marxist world government in place. Also I'm a bit sceptical of claims like that given the history of Anthony Watts refusing to honour his promise to accept the results of the Best study.
You expect us to believe and trust you and others like you when all along every prediction and projection even has ended up being wrong.
Typically, climate scientists don't make predictions, they tend to make projections based on specific criteria. The difficult is they can't predict random natural variation, and the random noise dominated the yearly trend over short periods, however, the projections have been reasonably accurate given the difficulties.
Where is the proof?
Everywhere.
Because in my experience the person throwing out the insults is the one who tends to have nothing else to say.
Is not claiming that the scientists are engaged in "dirty behaviour" not insulting?
It's below the long term average (by a million square km), and there are exactly two data points, so only a fool would consider that an upward trend. Also the years with lower ice extents are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
You're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything else.
You have to remember for the libertarians (the Heartland Institute's branch anyway) it's not really about the science it's about defending their ideology from an existential challenge. They believe that government is always bad and capitalism always good. The very idea of capitalism causing a massive global problem that can only be resolved by government intervention is unthinkable and thus must be false. The facts be damned, because they know the "The Truth of Capitalist Libertarianism" they know that AGW can not true.
Also, the Heartland Institute is funded by the true believers, so they will fight this to the last breath because both their identities and their jobs depend on it.
Those people are usually labeled as criminals.
Only after they're caught, before they're caught they're usually called sociopaths, psychopaths, or CEOs...
I'd put my bet down that the car wouldn't drive at a speed where it couldn't safely stop or maneuver, so neither.
That's why you have redundant sensors and regular maintenance.
Sounds like a good reason to me. Of course, I don't want to spend an extra 30 minutes on the road because some people suddenly forget how to drive because it's snowed.
Maybe your job or employer doesn't let you telecommute?
How much more does an average American consume than a middle-class person in Europe, Japan, China or other emerging economies?
According to World Bank figures, almost 2 Europeans, 2 Japanese, or 5 Chinese based on the 2010 values.
The problem is there is no evidence that the regulations would be "massive", cause "higher unemployment", appreciabl increase costs, or reduce progress. British Columbia, for example, implemented a carbon tax and it has reduced emissions substancially and had neglible impact on employment, prices or progress while competing with other North American jurisdictions that don't have a carbon tax.
Really, the libertarian alarmist paranoia on this issue is a bit much.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I have, many times, right here on Slashdot.
CO2 is much higher than 15 years ago but temperatures remain pretty flat.
That's internal variability for you, it always messes up the short term trends. It's important to understand that you can subdivide any noisy graph into sections where the trend lines are increasing, flat or descending regardless of the overall direction, it's the very reason that cherry-picked time periods can be highly misleading. We are currently in a La Nina dominated period which pushes more warming into the ocean, when we switch back to an El Nino dominated period (like the 90s), atmospheric temperatures will appear to rise more rapidly than the average rate (because just the switch from La Nina to El Nino will increase atmospheric surface temperatures by around 1 degree).
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
First of all, that was posted to Watts Up, which makes it highly suspect, Watts is very uncritical about anything that supports his point of view. Second, the IPCC reports estimate that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would contributes between 2 and 4 degrees of warming (which, I think, includes known feedbacks like water vapour increase), it would then take another doubling of that value to get another 2C to 4C of warming. I think the article you linked to uses the largely discredited estimate of 1C per doubling, and I suspect it doesn't include any of the known immediate feedbacks (like the water vapour feedback).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and the claims that global warming due to CO2 will be catastrophic don't seem to be proven.
The primary problem is less likely to be "catastrophic" warming and more likely to be significantly inconveniencing warming. The kind that will cost many trillions of dollars to adapt to which, of course, will lead to higher taxes and possibly lower standards of living. It's estimated to be less expensive (by several trillion dollars) to reduce emissions and shift to alternative power sources than to actually adapt to the changes.
For example, the "hot spot" seems to be missing.
According to the explanation on Skeptical Science, the hot spot is likely to be "missing" simply because it's actually very difficult to measure the termperature of an indistinct patch of air in the upper atmosphere. You can read the linked page for the detailed explanation.
Of course I hope global warming is overrated, because the world is still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If the consequences really will be dire, we will find out.
I hope so too, because it does seem like we're going to find out.
Truth is, climate change "science" is becoming more and more akin to creationism/ID.
Because creationism/ID is supported by decades of complex scientific research?
Wait, that's not right...
There are no Polar Bears drowning and the ice sheets are bigger.
According to the WWF, there are 19 distinct populations of polar bears. 7 out of 19 populations are declining, 5 out of 19 populations are stable, and the rest there's not enough evidence to determine population status. They also list climate change as one of the primary threats to the polar bear population. You may be technically correct though, in that the polar bears tend to starve to death (or die from malnutrition complications) rather than actually drowning.
I did not write "if they don't feel as I do they are dishonest." What I wrote was that if THEY are honest, they will reach the obvious conclusion. The difference may be small, but it exists and it is important.
Actually, I don't think the difference exists and even if it did, it wouldn't be important. The end point is dismissing any opinion that is contrary to yours because it is contrary to your opinion.
Very obviously I was stating an opinion, but it is an honest one.
You may believe it, but it is not an honest opinion, it's a ad hominem. It probably means your rationality has been compromised by an emotional response.
he site carries nothing but articles about global warming, and SUPPORTS only one side of that argument. On the whole site. So, "skeptical" it ain't.
I'm not sure you understand what a sceptic is. It's not about refusing to pick a side in an argument, it's about looking at the evidence to find out what's true. The fact that they support "one side of that argument" has less to do with bias, and more to with the simple fact that all of the evidence is on that side of "the argument".
How much carbon is contained in the top inch of soil?
Approximately 1500 GT (amount of carbon in soil) / 7 (average soil depth) = 214 GT world wide.
How much carbon (at a rate of 400ppm) is contained in the atmosphere?
Approximately 720 GT
How much has to be sequestered to reach pre-industrial levels?
Approximately 240 GT*
It still seems a bit fantastic. Especially the claim that if all U.S. beef were raised that way it would solve climate change. After all, the U.S. represents approximately 1.9% of the earth surface. To sequester the required 240 GT of carbon, you'd need to add more than 52 inches of top soil to the entire country.
Never the less I learned something new today, this managed intesive rotational grazing could be an important tool for stabilizing the climate.
* Actually this number is considerably larger, the Ocean will release additional carbon into the air slowing the fall of carbon levels just as it slows the rise of carbon levels. The ocean contains approximately 38,400 GT of carbon, so that could be a lot of top soil.
Without any long term baseline for comparison it's hard to judge what type of cycles affect ice formation and whether the current trends are normal or irregular.
This is true, however we have some understanding of the physical reasons that are driving the changes, and no reason to believe those factors will change any time soon. We know that the CO2 concentration in the air has increased, which traps more heat in the atmosphere and the ocean, we also know that ice loss is a self-reinforcing trend through loss of albedo. So while it could, in theory, be a cyclical variation, there is also no evidence to suggest that it is. On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that the ice loss is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years.
Just to be clear, a new record setting minimum (or maximum) extent is a significant event. In the last 30 years, there have been 8 new record minimum lows (1981, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2012) and only 1 record minimum high (1983). You don't see anyone going about record highs values because there haven't been any and there likely won't be one for a very long time. However, if we the yearly sea ice minimum did hit a new record high, it would be very big news.
That graph isn't contemplating extended climate changes, it's contemplating the reaction of a group of people who herald every rise as monumental victory and dismiss every fall as a temporary anomaly.
Carbon taxes will do nothing in the face of exponential population growth.
Population growth is slowing.
When it starts getting too expensive, the politicians will begin handing out "exemptions", you know, for the really poor, for the children, etc.
Actually, most revenue neutral carbon tax systems, pay out a per-person subsidy based on the revenues collected by the tax. The poorest people in each nation would, by definition, benefit from those programs so there's no reason to hand out exemptions.
And at the end of the day you'll be back to square one, only worse since you will not have addressed the real problem.
Clearly you think the real problem is too many people, but we have other related problems that a carbon tax would address. For instance, it should provide an economic incentive for making changes and performing research that reduces the population's impact on the planet.
Yes, 15 years ago MS was "evil" for bundling a web browser with an OS at no extra charge (the horrors!)
You obviously don't have to work with anything on the web, because the pain inflicted by Microsoft on the countless web developers over the years is still fresh and ongoing for many. There are quire a few people who are only a few more "It doesn't work in IE6"s away from a murderous rampage. That's also ignoring everything else Microsoft has pulled in the 15 years since.
Sony crippled their own products *after you had already bought them* and you call them *less* hostile? You're either insane or very, very biased. Sony are playing you for a fool, and you're lapping it up.
I have yet to see anyone say Sony is an Angel, but the truth is most people didn't use the Other OS feature, and for those that didn't the change didn't do anything to cripple what they use the PS3 for which is usually either watching movies, playing games, or both. There are things I don't like about the changes Sony has made over the life of the PS3, but frankly, Microsoft seems to be worse in just about every way that matters to me. On the other hand, calling someone an idiot, a fool, and insane for not agreeing with your opinion is juvenile and belligerent.
It's not just any strong belief, after all, I don't think there are too many people who are extremely violent because really orchids are the best kind of flower. I think the proper word is ideology. The kind of violence you are referring to requires a strong set of beliefs that reinforce each other and it requires an enemy ideology (or ideologies). The violence is justified by fear and/or hatred of the enemy.
It doesn't matter whether the enemy is libertarianism, collectivism, capitalism, Islam, religion, athieism, liberalism, progressives, conservatism, environmentalism, industrialism, or people with different colored skin. Some people will try to marshal fear and hatred to enhance their own power, and intentionally or not, it will spawn violence. These people will routinely used cherry-picked facts or quotes to justify their position, sometimes ignoring the obvious message to focus on minutae that can justify their current activities. They may do it consciously to manipulate others or unconsciously to justify their behaviour, but tiny little facts that match their ideology will be found to be more important than the massive important ones that contradict it.