Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[asterism]

No they haven't proved it. Shows how little you know. Oh, and yes, I know that evolution is fact. You fail all around.

It is proven, you're just desperate to deny facts.

No it isn't, nit wit.

Every international scientific body disagrees with you, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Is an appeal to evidence also a fallacy?

No.

 

[Marxist]

It is proven, you're just desperate to deny facts.

No it isn't, nit wit.

Every international scientific body disagrees with you, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Is an appeal to evidence also a fallacy?

No.

You seem to think it is.

 

[jc456]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

dude, really show a link that shows there isn't something present. Well dude, why don't you show the link that shows it does? you know that one with the 120 PPM of CO2, got that one yet? come on frisbee let's see it.

 

[jc456]

Science denialism stems from a feeling of entitlement. All such people care only that they enjoy the present, without any regard for the well being of future generations.

It is usually because they have learned mythology in place of rational morality. One can only hope there minds will change over time, but if not, it is of little concern to proper society. As there is no natural right to act in a manner that is noxious to all mankind, there is no need to consider their complaints in the least.

what??????

So you don't want people to have freedom of speech? Is that what you're implying?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity. What are you, anyway? 13, 14 years old? Get a life.

Refuted lies....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And people should believe you scumbags when you offer charts and graphs based on computer models?

Dude, you have ZERO integrity - none, not a smidgen.

Science is NOT the process of selecting a politically advantageous conclusion, then manipulating or outright fabricating data to support the preconception.

You offer dogma and faith, which has nothing to the do with the process of discovery that is real science.

 

[jc456]

Yes, you deniers certainly DID get caught in outright fraud. None of your claims about the e-mails were true. No climate scientists were prosecuted, much less charges filed. It was a massive waste of time and money, and yet here you are singing the praises of the frauds who actually DID get caught - the deniers.

So it wasn't you fuckwad cultists who got caught?

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones (Climatic Research Unit)
University of East Anglia}

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


"…Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…"


Oh wait, you're lying again - you have no integrity.

Carry on...

That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity. What are you, anyway? 13, 14 years old? Get a life.

well did that happen? Are you afraid of history? What is your problem friend?

 

[jc456]

denialism is bankrolled by, among others k0ch Indu$tries

so?

 

[jc456]

Inorganic atoms and molecules bumped around and formed amino acids and proteins and developed self awareness.

Yeah, right

No a dude with a bushy beard got some water some dirt and put it together baked it and out came people...then he put them in a garden spot until a talking snake appeared and said to eat of a fruit the bushy bearded entity had left conveniently in the Garden spot...the rest is history....hey we are all the product of incest..... Adam and Eve kids procreated with one another .......

You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"

Since you want to deny facts, let me educate you on evolution.
Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Let's start with the basics, hmmmkay

How did atoms and molecules "evolve" to form the first cells

It' typical of the uneducated to put forth such ridiculous arguments. One cannot answer currently how the first atoms formed, and atoms have nothing to do with evolution, this is what evolution is: Evolution is change in heritabletraits of biologicalpopulations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
It does not have to account for atoms, how atoms started, etc, etc.. That is a whole other thing entirely, but the big bang answers this. The molecules?
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
How Did Life Start On Earth Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network
Creatures from the Black Lagoon Lessons in the Diversity and Evolution of Eukaryotes
Much more on the subject.

oh my gawd!!!!!!!! dude, you should be ashamed.

 

[jc456]

Inorganic atoms and molecules bumped around and formed amino acids and proteins and developed self awareness.

Yeah, right

No a dude with a bushy beard got some water some dirt and put it together baked it and out came people...then he put them in a garden spot until a talking snake appeared and said to eat of a fruit the bushy bearded entity had left conveniently in the Garden spot...the rest is history....hey we are all the product of incest..... Adam and Eve kids procreated with one another .......

You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"

Since you want to deny facts, let me educate you on evolution.
Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Let's start with the basics, hmmmkay

How did atoms and molecules "evolve" to form the first cells

We dont know exactly how and when life started but the first life didn't have oxygen. So eventually plants came and started putting oxygen in the air and today we need oxygen to live.

Its very hard to explain but when you learn all the facts you realize people who deny evolution do so for bad reasons.

so tell me, if you have no idea how life started how can you dispute someone's opinion or view? how?

 

[Marxist]

No a dude with a bushy beard got some water some dirt and put it together baked it and out came people...then he put them in a garden spot until a talking snake appeared and said to eat of a fruit the bushy bearded entity had left conveniently in the Garden spot...the rest is history....hey we are all the product of incest..... Adam and Eve kids procreated with one another .......

You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"

Since you want to deny facts, let me educate you on evolution.
Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Let's start with the basics, hmmmkay

How did atoms and molecules "evolve" to form the first cells

We dont know exactly how and when life started but the first life didn't have oxygen. So eventually plants came and started putting oxygen in the air and today we need oxygen to live.

Its very hard to explain but when you learn all the facts you realize people who deny evolution do so for bad reasons.

so tell me, if you have no idea how life started how can you dispute someone's opinion or view? how?

We're disputing your view of evolution, not the formation of atoms, (big bang though)

 

[jc456]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.

 

[jc456]

You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"

Since you want to deny facts, let me educate you on evolution.
Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Let's start with the basics, hmmmkay

How did atoms and molecules "evolve" to form the first cells

We dont know exactly how and when life started but the first life didn't have oxygen. So eventually plants came and started putting oxygen in the air and today we need oxygen to live.

Its very hard to explain but when you learn all the facts you realize people who deny evolution do so for bad reasons.

so tell me, if you have no idea how life started how can you dispute someone's opinion or view? how?

We're disputing your view of evolution, not the formation of atoms, (big bang though)

you have no idea what my position is in evolution. So how can you dispute me? I merely asked a question you choose not to answer and instead throw a stone.

 

[orogenicman]

[

That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity. What are you, anyway? 13, 14 years old? Get a life.

Refuted lies....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And people should believe you scumbags when you offer charts and graphs based on computer models?

Dude, you have ZERO integrity - none, not a smidgen.

Science is NOT the process of selecting a politically advantageous conclusion, then manipulating or outright fabricating data to support the preconception.

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is exactly what deniers do. Congratulations, we are getting somewhere.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, you deniers certainly DID get caught in outright fraud. None of your claims about the e-mails were true. No climate scientists were prosecuted, much less charges filed. It was a massive waste of time and money, and yet here you are singing the praises of the frauds who actually DID get caught - the deniers.

So it wasn't you fuckwad cultists who got caught?

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones (Climatic Research Unit)
University of East Anglia}

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


"…Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…"


Oh wait, you're lying again - you have no integrity.

Carry on...

That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity. What are you, anyway? 13, 14 years old? Get a life.

well did that happen? Are you afraid of history? What is your problem friend?

I take it you've been asleep for the past 6 years. Oh dear.

 

[jc456]

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

They have proved it. Same way they have proved evolution is real.

What kind of science you know?

No they haven't proved it. Shows how little you know. Oh, and yes, I know that evolution is fact. You fail all around.

It is proven, you're just desperate to deny facts.

I lost track of what was proven as fact. What was again?

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

 

[jc456]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

 

[orogenicman]

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[

That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity. What are you, anyway? 13, 14 years old? Get a life.

Refuted lies....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And people should believe you scumbags when you offer charts and graphs based on computer models?

Dude, you have ZERO integrity - none, not a smidgen.

Science is NOT the process of selecting a politically advantageous conclusion, then manipulating or outright fabricating data to support the preconception.

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is exactly what deniers do. Congratulations, we are getting somewhere.

Denier is a Cult word

 

[jc456]

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim. But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living. So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data. Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement? I also absorb others data and use logic. And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is? Please explain that?