AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Righto 
Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.
AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).
But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.
Standard appeal to authority and consensus. It's almost as if you're a lefty religious fanatic.Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.
AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).
But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.
Actually, I take that back, you didn't know that did you?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelogicofscience.com...
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Well, you display that kind of faith and bias at every opportunity.
But his “faith and bias” is based on the considered opinion and collective judgement of the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions.Yours is based on what exactly?
Honesty.
Open debate.
Gadgetmac said:
Righto
Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.
AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).
But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.
I think it's a mistake to use the word 'belief' here; the semantics are guilty of creating this ignorance problem in the first place. Scientists, true scientists at least, don't "believe" in anything, they look at the evidence and appraise it using their experience and knowledge. In the case of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the utterly overwhelming body of evidence shows that humans are the primary cause of most of the global warming that has occurred and is occurring now. I guess to the layman we could say that it's a "fact" and that it's proven "beyond all reasonable doubt", but therein lies the problem; scientists are trained to always have doubt, and people without scientific training fail to understand that; they see the doubt and we get ridiculous threads like "climate change - the debate".Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.
AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).
But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.
In the past few months I've had genuine discussions on PH and social media with people who think milk is bad for you (fat content excepted of course), vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, the earth is 6,000 years old, and all sorts of other complete nonsense. One could even argue the same mechanism is what caused the vote for Brexit. It's even been studied, in the context of both science and politics: people without knowledge of a subject are more likely to cling to what they hear first, and if that's disinformation then that's what they'll believe. Arrogance also plays a part: people think after reading a book or two they know more than someone who's devoted to their life to understanding and contributing to a subject. Take the milk thing: I was on a PH thread recently that went over multiple pages and posters just weren't having it, despite the overwhelming evidence that milk is good for you. I posted two links to respectable sources that included many quotes from experts on the subject, all in agreement, but sadly some people are just never going to get it. I have lots of friends in the space industry and they get the same thing from flat earthers constantly. There are literally experiments you can do with a stick in the ground that show the earth is round (and you can also calculate the earth's diameter with this method), but some people just have their heads in the sand instead.
I think it's great to engage with these people and to try and educate them, but to be honest I think the overwhelming majority are a lost cause. A very knowledgeable friend of mine keen on space, "Eric Mc" on here (note there's two with subtley different spellings), just refuses to even engage with people like this, and to be honest I think he has the best attitude. Most people are a lost cause. That thread about the AGW "debate" has been running for years. There's no fixing stupid.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 09:40
RobM77 said:
I think it's a mistake to use the word 'belief' here; the semantics are guilty of creating this ignorance problem in the first place. Scientists, true scientists at least, don't "believe" in anything, they look at the evidence and appraise it using their experience and knowledge. In the case of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the utterly overwhelming body of evidence shows that humans are the primary cause of most of the global warming that has occurred and is occurring now.1 I guess to the layman we could say that it's a "fact" and that it's proven "beyond all reasonable doubt", but therein lies the problem; scientists are trained to always have doubt, and people without scientific training fail to understand that; they see the doubt and we get ridiculous threads like "climate change - the debate".
In the past few months I've had genuine discussions on PH and social media with people who think milk is bad for you (fat content excepted of course), vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, the earth is 6,000 years old, and all sorts of other complete nonsense. One could even argue the same mechanism is what caused the vote for Brexit. It's even been studied, in the context of both science and politics: people without knowledge of a subject are more likely to cling to what they hear first, and if that's disinformation then that's what they'll believe.2 Arrogance also plays a part: people think after reading a book or two they know more than someone who's devoted to their life to understanding and contributing to a subject. Take the milk thing: I was on a PH thread recently that went over multiple pages and posters just weren't having it, despite the overwhelming evidence that milk is good for you. I posted two links to respectable sources that included many quotes from experts on the subject, all in agreement, but sadly some people are just never going to get it. I have lots of friends in the space industry and they get the same thing from flat earthers constantly. There are literally experiments you can do with a stick in the ground that show the earth is round (and you can also calculate the earth's diameter with this method), but some people just have their heads in the sand instead.
I think it's great to engage with these people and to try and educate them, but to be honest I think the overwhelming majority are a lost cause. A very knowledgeable friend of mine keen on space, "Eric Mc" on here (note there's two with subtley different spellings), just refuses to even engage with people like this, and to be honest I think he has the best attitude. Most people are a lost cause. That thread about the AGW "debate" has been running for years. There's no fixing stupid.
Let's take your two points of argument in order:In the past few months I've had genuine discussions on PH and social media with people who think milk is bad for you (fat content excepted of course), vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, the earth is 6,000 years old, and all sorts of other complete nonsense. One could even argue the same mechanism is what caused the vote for Brexit. It's even been studied, in the context of both science and politics: people without knowledge of a subject are more likely to cling to what they hear first, and if that's disinformation then that's what they'll believe.2 Arrogance also plays a part: people think after reading a book or two they know more than someone who's devoted to their life to understanding and contributing to a subject. Take the milk thing: I was on a PH thread recently that went over multiple pages and posters just weren't having it, despite the overwhelming evidence that milk is good for you. I posted two links to respectable sources that included many quotes from experts on the subject, all in agreement, but sadly some people are just never going to get it. I have lots of friends in the space industry and they get the same thing from flat earthers constantly. There are literally experiments you can do with a stick in the ground that show the earth is round (and you can also calculate the earth's diameter with this method), but some people just have their heads in the sand instead.
I think it's great to engage with these people and to try and educate them, but to be honest I think the overwhelming majority are a lost cause. A very knowledgeable friend of mine keen on space, "Eric Mc" on here (note there's two with subtley different spellings), just refuses to even engage with people like this, and to be honest I think he has the best attitude. Most people are a lost cause. That thread about the AGW "debate" has been running for years. There's no fixing stupid.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 09:40
If your premise is true then yes it would indeed be unscientific to have much doubt. Unfortunately the premise isn't true and the entire edifice is based on a "God of Gaps" argument (it must be anthropogenic CO2 causing the warming as we don't know of anything else).
Have a read of the latest TAR. And read the chapter on TSI and the one on svensmark hypothesis. Possible giant holes in the entire radiative forcing calculations - and that isn't even mentioning eruptivity and the differences in the spectrum energies during solar states.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TA...
As to your second point - whilst it "may have been studied" the psychological behaviours you are referring to are far from proven (and yet you accept them without an overwhelming body of evidence
)V10leptoquark said:
Just to flip to OP title - MMGW belief is anti-science
And of course this is the case when the science is unable to give proof that the human CO2 influence is enough to be DRIVING climate change.
This is another classic - we saw it a lot with the Apollo 11 conspiracy: say something that plainly isn't true (with the Apollo conspiracy it was "humans can't pass through the Van Allen belts" or "there should be stars in the photos"), and because the reading audience don't know any better, they assume this is true and it's a valid argument. Even if shown evidence to the contrary, people cling to these original beliefs. Furthermore, even if people acknowledge the statement/s is nonsense, if you have enough of them, it sows seeds of doubt. The problem with the internet is that this sort of commentary isn't limited to the village idiot, with hundreds of voices of reason in the village against them; the internet means lots of village idiots can come together and appear like a majority, and the problem spreads.And of course this is the case when the science is unable to give proof that the human CO2 influence is enough to be DRIVING climate change.
RobM77 said:
V10leptoquark said:
Just to flip to OP title - MMGW belief is anti-science
And of course this is the case when the science is unable to give proof that the human CO2 influence is enough to be DRIVING climate change.
This is another classic - we saw it a lot with the Apollo 11 conspiracy: say something that plainly isn't true (with the Apollo conspiracy it was "humans can't pass through the Van Allen belts" or "there should be stars in the photos"), and because the reading audience don't know any better, they assume this is true and it's a valid argument. Even if shown evidence to the contrary, people cling to these original beliefs. Furthermore, even if people acknowledge the statement/s is nonsense, if you have enough of them, it sows seeds of doubt. The problem with the internet is that this sort of commentary isn't limited to the village idiot, with hundreds of voices of reason in the village against them; the internet means lots of village idiots can come together and appear like a majority, and the problem spreads.And of course this is the case when the science is unable to give proof that the human CO2 influence is enough to be DRIVING climate change.
Which your reply nicely points out.
The amount of alarmism in the debate and the political agenda means that what your write is exactly relevant for those pushing the politics under the name of science.
Gadgetmac said:
Exactly Rob.
PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
Apart from one missing point - you only have 12 years left - right?PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
So you can "move on" for 12 years and then its kaput.
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
I think it's a mistake to use the word 'belief' here; the semantics are guilty of creating this ignorance problem in the first place. Scientists, true scientists at least, don't "believe" in anything, they look at the evidence and appraise it using their experience and knowledge. In the case of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the utterly overwhelming body of evidence shows that humans are the primary cause of most of the global warming that has occurred and is occurring now.1 I guess to the layman we could say that it's a "fact" and that it's proven "beyond all reasonable doubt", but therein lies the problem; scientists are trained to always have doubt, and people without scientific training fail to understand that; they see the doubt and we get ridiculous threads like "climate change - the debate".
In the past few months I've had genuine discussions on PH and social media with people who think milk is bad for you (fat content excepted of course), vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, the earth is 6,000 years old, and all sorts of other complete nonsense. One could even argue the same mechanism is what caused the vote for Brexit. It's even been studied, in the context of both science and politics: people without knowledge of a subject are more likely to cling to what they hear first, and if that's disinformation then that's what they'll believe.2 Arrogance also plays a part: people think after reading a book or two they know more than someone who's devoted to their life to understanding and contributing to a subject. Take the milk thing: I was on a PH thread recently that went over multiple pages and posters just weren't having it, despite the overwhelming evidence that milk is good for you. I posted two links to respectable sources that included many quotes from experts on the subject, all in agreement, but sadly some people are just never going to get it. I have lots of friends in the space industry and they get the same thing from flat earthers constantly. There are literally experiments you can do with a stick in the ground that show the earth is round (and you can also calculate the earth's diameter with this method), but some people just have their heads in the sand instead.
I think it's great to engage with these people and to try and educate them, but to be honest I think the overwhelming majority are a lost cause. A very knowledgeable friend of mine keen on space, "Eric Mc" on here (note there's two with subtley different spellings), just refuses to even engage with people like this, and to be honest I think he has the best attitude. Most people are a lost cause. That thread about the AGW "debate" has been running for years. There's no fixing stupid.
Let's take your two points of argument in order:In the past few months I've had genuine discussions on PH and social media with people who think milk is bad for you (fat content excepted of course), vaccines cause autism, the earth is flat, the earth is 6,000 years old, and all sorts of other complete nonsense. One could even argue the same mechanism is what caused the vote for Brexit. It's even been studied, in the context of both science and politics: people without knowledge of a subject are more likely to cling to what they hear first, and if that's disinformation then that's what they'll believe.2 Arrogance also plays a part: people think after reading a book or two they know more than someone who's devoted to their life to understanding and contributing to a subject. Take the milk thing: I was on a PH thread recently that went over multiple pages and posters just weren't having it, despite the overwhelming evidence that milk is good for you. I posted two links to respectable sources that included many quotes from experts on the subject, all in agreement, but sadly some people are just never going to get it. I have lots of friends in the space industry and they get the same thing from flat earthers constantly. There are literally experiments you can do with a stick in the ground that show the earth is round (and you can also calculate the earth's diameter with this method), but some people just have their heads in the sand instead.
I think it's great to engage with these people and to try and educate them, but to be honest I think the overwhelming majority are a lost cause. A very knowledgeable friend of mine keen on space, "Eric Mc" on here (note there's two with subtley different spellings), just refuses to even engage with people like this, and to be honest I think he has the best attitude. Most people are a lost cause. That thread about the AGW "debate" has been running for years. There's no fixing stupid.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 09:40
If your premise is true then yes it would indeed be unscientific to have much doubt. Unfortunately the premise isn't true and the entire edifice is based on a "God of Gaps" argument (it must be anthropogenic CO2 causing the warming as we don't know of anything else).
Have a read of the latest TAR. And read the chapter on TSI and the one on svensmark hypothesis. Possible giant holes in the entire radiative forcing calculations - and that isn't even mentioning eruptivity and the differences in the spectrum energies during solar states.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TA...
As to your second point - whilst it "may have been studied" the psychological behaviours you are referring to are far from proven (and yet you accept them without an overwhelming body of evidence
)Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 10:24
V10leptoquark said:
Gadgetmac said:
Exactly Rob.
PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
Apart from one missing point - you only have 12 years left - right?PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
So you can "move on" for 12 years and then its kaput.
Please list them and their climate science credentials.
You won't because like all denier arguments it's false.
I'll wait.
Gadgetmac said:
V10leptoquark said:
Gadgetmac said:
Exactly Rob.
PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
Apart from one missing point - you only have 12 years left - right?PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
So you can "move on" for 12 years and then its kaput.
Please list them and their climate science credentials.
You won't because like all denier arguments it's false.
I'll wait.
stew-STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
V10leptoquark said:
Gadgetmac said:
Exactly Rob.
PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
Apart from one missing point - you only have 12 years left - right?PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
So you can "move on" for 12 years and then its kaput.
Please list them and their climate science credentials.
You won't because like all denier arguments it's false.
I'll wait.
RobM77 said:
Ah, another classic. This one we saw with Brexit a few times: you've scoured an enormous report for tiny mistakes or criticisms and assumed that invalidates the entire message. You're also trying to swallow and appraise a lot of highly technical data and commentary and assuming you're better qualified for the job than someone who's spent their lifetime studying it.You're a business development manager, not a climate scientist.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 10:19
none so blind indeed. I am not sure what an old job title has to do with anything and next up you'll probably be after my qualifications (Maths, Physics and Chemistry A-levels and Mathematics and Philosophy degree but obviously nothing relevant to climate science (tm)). If time spent doing something makes one an expert then my 20 years in Data should count for something no?But you are right I am not a climate scientist and pretty damn glad I'm not; as having to swallow the cagw line just to keep my job would be a burden I would struggle to bear.
Gadgetmac said:
Here's where the stupid really kicks in. Which scientists have said that in 12 years it's kaput?
Please list them and their climate science credentials.
You won't because like all denier arguments it's false.
I'll wait.
As per your previous in the politics thread - my argument here is about the politics and its claims of 12 years left which you keep coming back to wanting individual scientist references. Please list them and their climate science credentials.
You won't because like all denier arguments it's false.
I'll wait.
The science of course does NOT claim 12 years left - in fact it doesn't claim that we are in any sort of alarmist status. Only the politics does this.
The science also does not claim to be able to predict with any accuracy the future of a chaotic climate system. Only the politics does this.
And finally the science does not produce a figure on how much (if any) forcing/driving there is by human CO2 on its ability to change the climate. Only the computer model programming will do this - which again is political when one takes a look at how much it is overplaying the human CO2 effects within its predictions to that of observations as time goes on.
Which again are my main points of contention.
From this base my argument is that by use of modelling and by the use of political opinion, we are left with speculation on what may occur in the future with regards to the climate. This is purely political. Yet you are deriding others because they deny what they are told to believe by the politics. The science is not telling us to believe anything, especially anything that is to cause hysterical alarm as we've seen with XR and AOC.
Gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
V10leptoquark said:
Gadgetmac said:
Exactly Rob.
PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
Apart from one missing point - you only have 12 years left - right?PH had become a bolt hole for those who refuse to see the obvious for either political, financial or contrarian reasons.
As you said, there's no fixing stupid.
Fortunately the rest of the world is able to move on without them.
So you can "move on" for 12 years and then its kaput.
Please list them and their climate science credentials.
You won't because like all denier arguments it's false.
I'll wait.
You posted in the other thread about the 11,000 'scientists' who signed something, yet when put under scrutiny, that number fell, and fell, and fell as more and more names were just 'normal people', and Mickey Mouse.
Your beloved 97% fails and the number of 'approved' papers in support of it continuously reduces when anything published by folk with 'non climate science approved' qualifications(such as geology) needs to be removed from the equation.
So is that right, or wrong, Gadget?
Gadgetmac said:
As usual stew, it's wrong. Just like your "November" point earlier.
Got any scientific institutions that support your position on AGW?
No? Why's that Stew?
And no the 97% doesn't fail you buffoon.
I posted a reply about the November point. Got any scientific institutions that support your position on AGW?
No? Why's that Stew?
And no the 97% doesn't fail you buffoon.
Wrong in what way though? You continually post about who has what credentials to argue against it, yet never say anything about those who don't hold the qualifications who support the CAGW view. A blind eye for your fellow faith members eh...
So, if I'm such a buffoon, explain to me how that 97% came to be? How it was found. Not a copy and paste or a link, I want your wording.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff