AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
phil-sti said:
Esceptico said:
Terminator X said:
What do you say about the "predictions" made 15-20 years ago that never happened? Al Gore for example.
TX.
Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Classic denier response. You have not addressed the points I raised in my post but instead have come back with an irrelevant question. TX.
Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.
Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?
Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).
Oilchange said:
I suspect that there is far too much money involved for any sensible conclusion to be reached.
Just ask Al Gore...
Over and over again, anyone who criticises the believer is belittled as a classic denier. Its frankly patronising.
Why the references do Al Gore? This is science thread not the NPE never ending CC thread.Just ask Al Gore...
Over and over again, anyone who criticises the believer is belittled as a classic denier. Its frankly patronising.
Terminator X said:
Esceptico said:
And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution.
If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
It seems you understand very little about the "97% consensus" .If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
TX.
Anyway what matters more is that there are hundreds of respectable, scientific organisations that endorse AGW eg NASA, Royal Academy of Science. It’s a long list. Can you name one recognised institution that publicly says they don’t endorse AGW? Just one for starters?
Esceptico said:
I don’t understand the conspiracy theory article trying to pick apart the study that came up with 97%? No I understand that.
Anyway what matters more is that there are hundreds of respectable, scientific organisations that endorse AGW eg NASA, Royal Academy of Science. It’s a long list. Can you name one recognised institution that publicly says they don’t endorse AGW? Just one for starters?
And that's the classic consensus supporter's appeal to authority - argumentum ad verecundiam.Anyway what matters more is that there are hundreds of respectable, scientific organisations that endorse AGW eg NASA, Royal Academy of Science. It’s a long list. Can you name one recognised institution that publicly says they don’t endorse AGW? Just one for starters?
Sceptics tend to prefer the (consensus supporting) Royal Society's "take nobody's word for it".
Esceptico said:
Oilchange said:
I suspect that there is far too much money involved for any sensible conclusion to be reached.
Just ask Al Gore...
Over and over again, anyone who criticises the believer is belittled as a classic denier. Its frankly patronising.
Why the references do Al Gore? This is science thread not the NPE never ending CC thread.Just ask Al Gore...
Over and over again, anyone who criticises the believer is belittled as a classic denier. Its frankly patronising.
He became supremely rich off the back of it all. Which makes me rather more skeptical hence the comment about far too much money being involved.
I mean, it's not rocket science!
I'm not religious or a theist and have an engineering degree (it's like science but more useful) and I don't really swallow the whole Darwinian evolution natural selection theory. I think the punctuated equilibrian theory (long periods of homeostasis in species interspersed with short periods of very rapid change caused by changes in environment or random nutation) much more likely.
FredClogs said:
I'm not religious or a theist and have an engineering degree (it's like science but more useful) and I don't really swallow the whole Darwinian evolution natural selection theory. I think the punctuated equilibrian theory (long periods of homeostasis in species interspersed with short periods of very rapid change caused by changes in environment or random nutation) much more likely.
I had an argument about that with someone many years ago, the really interesting thing was that it turned out that we were both using Richard Dawkins' book as a reference. The relevance to this thread being that it is quite possible to follow the science around climate change without necessarily coming to the same conclusions. It is more than possible for two people to broadly agree that humans have affected the climate, but have different views as to the degree, ongoing predictions and best approach to dealing with it. All this denier stuff harms the discussion, all these attacks on the heretics by the true believers just forces a greater separation. Personally I think climate science has come a long way, but a too much of it still relies on spherical chickens in a vacuum to be taken as an accurate predictive model yet.
Edited by Toltec on Sunday 27th October 11:22
FredClogs said:
I'm not religious or a theist and have an engineering degree (it's like science but more useful) and I don't really swallow the whole Darwinian evolution natural selection theory. I think the punctuated equilibrian theory (long periods of homeostasis in species interspersed with short periods of very rapid change caused by changes in environment or random nutation) much more likely.
That isn’t comparable with AGW denial. The mechanism behind PET is 100% the same as the more widely accepted phyletic gradualism approach: both are based on natural selection. The argument is about the pace of change: large over short periods or more gradual over longer periods. That isn’t the same as AGW deniers claiming that either that temperatures have not increased or that human activity (release of greenhouse gases, deforestation, etc) is primarily responsible for a significant increase in global temperatures (with the obvious corollary that continuing to do so will lead to further temperature increases).AGW deniers or akin to those arguing for Lamarckism or Intelligent Design.
Toltec said:
All this denier stuff harms the discussion, all these attacks on the heretics by the true believers just forces a greater separation. Personally I think climate science has come a long way, but a too much of it still relies on spherical chickens in a vacuum to be taken as an accurate predictive model yet.
You are being disingenuous. I am not talking about disputes between genuine climate scientists about the extent of AGW and accuracy of modelling and the underlying assumptions and I suspect you know it. I am talking of those who flatly reject AGW. As above they are like those supporting Lamarckism or Intelligent Design. They are not rationally weighing up evidence. They are not moved by new information as they have already made up their mind and any new information (like old) is dismisses by various absurd conspiracy theories. Edited by Toltec on Sunday 27th October 11:22
Esceptico said:
FredClogs said:
I'm not religious or a theist and have an engineering degree (it's like science but more useful) and I don't really swallow the whole Darwinian evolution natural selection theory. I think the punctuated equilibrian theory (long periods of homeostasis in species interspersed with short periods of very rapid change caused by changes in environment or random nutation) much more likely.
That isn’t comparable with AGW denial. The mechanism behind PET is 100% the same as the more widely accepted phyletic gradualism approach: both are based on natural selection. The argument is about the pace of change: large over short periods or more gradual over longer periods. That isn’t the same as AGW deniers claiming that either that temperatures have not increased or that human activity (release of greenhouse gases, deforestation, etc) is primarily responsible for a significant increase in global temperatures (with the obvious corollary that continuing to do so will lead to further temperature increases).AGW deniers or akin to those arguing for Lamarckism or Intelligent Design.
Human history is full of epistemologic cock ups... Barnstorming around the place like some horrific cross between Liam Gallagher and Richard Dawkins trying to impress and belittle people with your intellect wing win many arguments and won't further human understanding.
Fwiw as I undestand it the earth warmed and cooled considerably before humans started building power stations and cutting down rainforest, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you and I aren't as important to the earth as you seem to think you are.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff