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

[Votto]

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.

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult are anti-science. Science is not done by consensus, that's how cults operate

 

[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

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.

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

 

[bripat9643]

Pattycake, you are an ignoramous. And a bit stupid to boot.

The scientists have published their evidence in peer reviewed journals and shown clear evidence for the role of the GHG's in the warming we are experiancing. The denial and the push to silence the scientists by 'Conservatives' is a farce that is making America look totally stupid to the rest of the world.

The journals are PAL reviewed, not peer reviewed, meaning only those who endorse the whole AGW scam are on the reviewing boards of the journals. It's a small tightly knit group of AGW cult members. Being published in a journal means almost nothing.

Being right is more important that what a gang of leftwing intellectual turds think about America. Those countries are all going broke paying for the "green energy" scam. Excuse me if I experience no desire to follow the lemmings over the cliff.

Right. They should allow diesel mechanics to "peer review" those pesky science papers, because damn, this is a democracy! Oh wait...

Your belief the so-called "peer review" proves their theories are correct is what's in question here. The process is fatally flawed and subject to corruption. It proves virtually nothing. Democracy has no place in science. Truth isn't subject to majority rule.

 

[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.

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

So, let's open up all of the research and let those who have questions get answers and let's move forward. Why does your side repeatedly stand in the way of progress?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Off topic.

certainly not

Erm, the topic is : Science denialism.

Your turn.

yeah take it up with oldie rocks who made the claim several posts ago ya crank

I am responding to you since you saw fit to respond to one of my posts with off topic drivel.

which post number did he respond to you?

it is obvious that i did not respond to his post --LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.

incorrect:

The current weather (climatic) conditions are due to the ADO and PDO shift to cold. This currently observed condition was seen in 1883, 1934, 1972, and today.. It is a cyclical cycle, not man made anything.

Why do alarmists make fools of themselves by not checking history before inserting their foot?

 

[Treeshepherd]

Your belief the so-called "peer review" proves their theories are correct is what's in question here. The process is fatally flawed and subject to corruption. It proves virtually nothing. Democracy has no place in science. Truth isn't subject to majority rule.

My favorite peer consensus was the Piltdown Man. "The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated."-wiki
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
It was a poorly crafted hoax purported to be an archeological 'discovery', with an ape jawbone fused to a human skull. It fit the theory of the missing link, and the scientific community was completely blinded by confirmation bias. It took 40 years for the hoax to be exposed. There should have been more people asking questions instead of just being acceptors.

It happens all the time in science. It took decades for the theory of gradual evolution to succumb to staggered evolution. Confirmation bias blinded scientists to the purpose of so-called junk DNA. I think that AGW is the Piltdown Man of the 21st century.

I actually have zero problem with the climate. It's been beautiful. I see no compelling evidence of radical sea level rises. We have much larger environmental problems than CO2 levels.

 

[PredFan]

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.

I am a published geologist with 20+ years of field experience. You?

I'm a medical professional and researcher with 32 years experience and 50 years of loving science and history. Care to address my post?

Yes, I'll address your post. No, you do not love science. In fact, you detest it. Otherwise you would recognize the evidence that has been presented. You love politics, and would place the 'way things ought to be' above reality. From your posts, you are damned ignorant of science. You never back your silly flap-yap with links to peer reviewed articles, just make statements and expect us to accept that. Your true peer level is Billy Boob and Frankie Boy.

And as always, you are dead wrong.

 

[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.

I am a published geologist with 20+ years of field experience. You?

I'm a medical professional and researcher with 32 years experience and 50 years of loving science and history. Care to address my post?

Yes, I'll address your post. No, you do not love science. In fact, you detest it. Otherwise you would recognize the evidence that has been presented. You love politics, and would place the 'way things ought to be' above reality. From your posts, you are damned ignorant of science. You never back your silly flap-yap with links to peer reviewed articles, just make statements and expect us to accept that. Your true peer level is Billy Boob and Frankie Boy.

And as always, you are dead wrong.

Most medical professionals are applied scientists, not hard or research scientists. What professional papers have you published, and in what journals? What do any of them tell us about atmospheric science?

 

[asterism]

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):


UAH Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2015 0.30 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD

Yep. Added CO2, 280 ppm to 400+ ppm, and look at what has happened. For February, 0.30, higher than at any time prior to 1997. My scientists are the people that make up the members of the Scientific Societies. So link me to a scientific society that states AGW is incorrect. You cannot do it because there are none, not even in Outer Slobovia.

Serious question:

I'm a data analyst by education and I see a clear upward trend in this time period. I also have seen enough actual raw data from UAH to more or less "trust" the source. Even considering 1998 as an outlier and allowing for some natural variance, why doesn't this data show a direct correlation between the temperature increase and the increase in CO2 concentration?

 

[Crick]

Noise. Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena. In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.

 

[Votto]

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.

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.

antarctic sea ice increasing - Google Search

Scientists say Antarctic sea ice has grown because global warming has changed antarctic winds and the ocean heating up has created record precipitation as also evidenced by the North American winter snowfalls that grow larger every year.
.

Who couldn't love this shit??!!! The Antarctic ice is growing which is clearly a sign of global warming!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The mental cases have spun it a million different ways...............but still, its not mattering >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[asterism]

Noise. Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena. In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.

So then what's the significance of 2014 being the "hottest year on record" if it's just part of the noise? Serious question, I'm trying to figure this out from a data perspective.

The trend is clear (at least for the last 40 years) but the data doesn't seem to match the conclusions so I must be missing something.

 

[rdean]

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.

Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.

antarctic sea ice increasing - Google Search

Scientists say Antarctic sea ice has grown because global warming has changed antarctic winds and the ocean heating up has created record precipitation as also evidenced by the North American winter snowfalls that grow larger every year.

Right wingers think because snow is cold, climate change must be a lie. Course, they don't understand that the increase in snow is actually evidence of the oceans heating up creating even more precipitation. Snow is cold so it can't be because of an increase in heat.

It's that kind of simplistic thinking that suggests to the rest of the world right wingers are simpletons.

There in your post we see the scam working.

If there is no ice....global warming.
If there is ice......global warming
Snow?..... Global warming,
No snow?..... Global warming.
Rain?..... Global warming.
Drought? .....Global warming.

The world is a BIG place and the GOP have tiny minds.

Where there is drought, there is no ice.

Where there is snow, there is way, way too much.

Just as scientists predicted.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):


UAH Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2015 0.30 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD

Yep. Added CO2, 280 ppm to 400+ ppm, and look at what has happened. For February, 0.30, higher than at any time prior to 1997. My scientists are the people that make up the members of the Scientific Societies. So link me to a scientific society that states AGW is incorrect. You cannot do it because there are none, not even in Outer Slobovia.

Serious question:

I'm a data analyst by education and I see a clear upward trend in this time period. I also have seen enough actual raw data from UAH to more or less "trust" the source. Even considering 1998 as an outlier and allowing for some natural variance, why doesn't this data show a direct correlation between the temperature increase and the increase in CO2 concentration?

The CMIP5 latest version is over estimating warming by over 30W/M^2. Look for major changes in this graph when the error is corrected and the positive bias applied to the graph is removed.

Source

 

[rdean]

My theory is that the GOP denies science because they have nothing else to do. Educated immigrants take the jobs Republicans aren't qualified for and migrant workers take the ones the GOP is too lazy, too fat and too old for. That leaves them time to be anti education and deny science.