AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
DickyC said:
Esceptico said:
So you don’t believe that the glaciers are disappearing? Even though there are photos of them disappearing over the past 100 years?
Ah, yes. Ridicule. Yet another way you damage your argument.For me the most damaging of your habits is you always sound so shrill.
It doesn't matter how serious the issues are, if you sound like a petulant schoolgirl you will get nowhere.
Try being more measured in your responses.
Oilchange said:
Gadgetmac said:
If Oilchange's thought processes are so simplistic that he thinks the BBC and Climate Scientists are trying to deceive him in such an obvious and almost infantile manner then he leaves himself open to some expressions of disbelief.
Not simplistic, skeptical. I ask questions until the truth is revealed and I don't believe it is yet. I try to sound like I am looking at it dispassionately, it may to some come across as infantile, no more than the zealots I think.
It is the constant stream of propaganda/soundbites etc which I don't buy.
The charge of alarmism is, frankly, b
ks. Climate change gets some coverage in the media but is politically ignored in most countries. For proof just watch how it will be almost completely ignored in the upcoming UK election and in the US presidential elections. It is so low priority Alex probably won’t even bother to lie about what he will do when he wins.JuniorD said:
Even news that Icelandic glaciers are growing is being portrayed as bad news
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/ma...
And ice in the Antarctic is growing
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
The expanding sea ice in Antarctica was not painted as “bad” in the article. Did you even read it? The only negative slant was that we didn’t really understand why and how one scientist was using data from NASA to try to understand it better. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/ma...
And ice in the Antarctic is growing
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Edited by JuniorD on Sunday 3rd November 11:49
Anyway the article is out of date as in more recent years there has been a dramatic drop:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antar...
Having said that I thought I had read recently that a problem in estimating the growth or loss of Antarctic sea ice is that most of the ice is below the surface so just looking at the extent of surface ice without measuring the volume of ice under water won’t give the full picture.
Vantagemech.. said:
So can someone on here supply an explanation. As I stated earlier I live on the south coast, near the Cinque Ports.
One of them in particular, a few hundred years ago, was completely surrounded by water.
Today its not, yet its not through reclamation just "sea retreat". Same goes for Bodiam castle which was once a few hundred yards from the sea,now its a about a 5 minute drive. Is it so stupid to expect something as vast as an ocean to retreat and advance without mans influence at all?
It seems far too convenient to simply box it up as MMGW or CAGW or whatever it is this week and tax everyone for a natural phenomenon. Unlike the self righteous that get off on showing how sad they are for things while pointing out others ignorance who dont share the same view at the time.
Are we so arrogant to believe that we can reverse or prevent these changes? I feel politicians are along with many scientists that want their names down in history. Only so far the likes of Mann etc have made such a pigs ear of things that nothing they now say can or should be taken as valid.
Increases in sea level caused by global warming are not the only factors that can cause the sea level to increase or decrease. Local factors can be more significant. Your anecdotal evidence of local drops are meaningless.One of them in particular, a few hundred years ago, was completely surrounded by water.
Today its not, yet its not through reclamation just "sea retreat". Same goes for Bodiam castle which was once a few hundred yards from the sea,now its a about a 5 minute drive. Is it so stupid to expect something as vast as an ocean to retreat and advance without mans influence at all?
It seems far too convenient to simply box it up as MMGW or CAGW or whatever it is this week and tax everyone for a natural phenomenon. Unlike the self righteous that get off on showing how sad they are for things while pointing out others ignorance who dont share the same view at the time.
Are we so arrogant to believe that we can reverse or prevent these changes? I feel politicians are along with many scientists that want their names down in history. Only so far the likes of Mann etc have made such a pigs ear of things that nothing they now say can or should be taken as valid.
You make bold statements but have you checked the science? Do you think scientist who specialise in sea level changes are not aware of other factors and are not taking them into account in their models? To prove the scientists wrong you would need to show that they had missed some relevant factors or that their models didn’t account for them satisfactorily. You can’t do that as you know nothing about the subject. I can’t either. Fortunately the peer reviewed scientific process where papers are published and are then open to scrutiny does allow such feedback.
cymtriks said:
In response to the OP:
Reading the comments of the AGW believers on various threads it is striking to me how similar the way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.
The same applies to AGW believers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They assume through out that CO2 can affect global warming (some serious climatologists dispute that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than alternative theories linking it mainly to increase in sunspot activity. However, and crucially, given that sunspot activity has increased and is known to be a climate driver they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in sunspot activity has not led to an increase in global temperatures.
What is most frustrating about believers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of Natural GW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.
It’s almost as if the IPCC hadn’t included solar radiance in their assessment of all natural forcing factors...Reading the comments of the AGW believers on various threads it is striking to me how similar the way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.
The same applies to AGW believers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They assume through out that CO2 can affect global warming (some serious climatologists dispute that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than alternative theories linking it mainly to increase in sunspot activity. However, and crucially, given that sunspot activity has increased and is known to be a climate driver they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in sunspot activity has not led to an increase in global temperatures.
What is most frustrating about believers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of Natural GW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG...
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
You may think this is funny, but it's not: you are not an expert on climate science, and more than the pub bore talking about WTO trade post-Brexit is an expert on trade agreements, or even knows the basics.
When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
I think you're funny. But humour is in the eye of the beholder. I don't need to be an expert to point out flaws in climate science where those flaws fall into specialisations (e.g. mathematics and data collection) other than climate science (check out https://climateaudit.org/ for an example of this maxim). To sugggest that the hallowed halls of Climate science (tm) even approach the rigor of Astrophysics is to have little understanding of the nascent state of climate science as a discipline.When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:20
So climate science is so complicated only a climate scientist can understand it? That is not how science works - as Einstein may have said:
possibly Einstein said:
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
I have been reading much around climate science since 2001 - 18 years of listening to "their reasoining" and checking their logic - hence my "god of gaps" assessment earlier. One thing stands out still - without amplification from water vapour there is no catastrophic global warming (that is the science). As yet there is no evidence of any amplification. kerplunk said:
grumbledoak said:
Politicians were quick to see it as a massive lever to massive power.
classic 
mondeoman said:
Very simply the science isn't settled, by any stretch.
How do the models explain the medieval warm period and the cooling in the forties?
Why are there 102 models that have such a spread of results? and only 1 (IIRC) is anything close to current observations.
CAGW skeptics dont have to have a rebutting theory, the only requirement is to indicate that alarmist CAGW theory is invalid.
These sorts of posts confirm my point. Creationists tell you that the science of evolution isn’t settled, despite the fact there are no biology departments at any reputable universities that don’t accept evolution. Same for climate change. Unless one of you deniers can provide evidence to the contrary (I’ve asked before and been ignored), all climate change/geography/earth science departments at all reputable universities accept AGW. How do the models explain the medieval warm period and the cooling in the forties?
Why are there 102 models that have such a spread of results? and only 1 (IIRC) is anything close to current observations.
CAGW skeptics dont have to have a rebutting theory, the only requirement is to indicate that alarmist CAGW theory is invalid.
Edited by mondeoman on Wednesday 1st January 12:13
Kawasicki said:
Do you accept their is a difference between CAGW and AGW?
No but I do see a difference between predictions of future temperature rises and the impact of the increases. For a given increase in greenhouse gases the increase in global temperature can be estimated quite well. However, there is uncertainty about how that impacts local weather, sea level rises, frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, etc. [quote=Kawasicki]
So you think that The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400+ ppm have had catastrophic consequences?
[/
No. That is a straw man argument because climate scientists are not saying that. But thanks for keep mentioning it.
To keep it simple, what is being said is that if we carry on as we are then almost certainly global temperatures will rise substantially (several degrees) above long term averages and such rises are expected to have a significant impact on the environment with corresponding impacts on fauna, flora and humans (that are difficult to estimate). Humans will no doubt survive but how we survive is the open question. The last couple of centuries have seen a huge leap forward for the majority of people in terms of material wealth, health, scientific progress, human rights and political rights. I think it is fair that if you consider population growth and environmental degradation then there are questions about whether we can maintain and improve upon our position. Throwing in climate change with its additional challenges and uncertainties could be the last straw. Why you are unable or unwilling to see that is beyond me.
So you think that The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400+ ppm have had catastrophic consequences?
[/
No. That is a straw man argument because climate scientists are not saying that. But thanks for keep mentioning it.
To keep it simple, what is being said is that if we carry on as we are then almost certainly global temperatures will rise substantially (several degrees) above long term averages and such rises are expected to have a significant impact on the environment with corresponding impacts on fauna, flora and humans (that are difficult to estimate). Humans will no doubt survive but how we survive is the open question. The last couple of centuries have seen a huge leap forward for the majority of people in terms of material wealth, health, scientific progress, human rights and political rights. I think it is fair that if you consider population growth and environmental degradation then there are questions about whether we can maintain and improve upon our position. Throwing in climate change with its additional challenges and uncertainties could be the last straw. Why you are unable or unwilling to see that is beyond me.
HarryW said:
A couple of quotes to ponder from one of the worlds greatest minds:
If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
I particularly like this one;
I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.
One more for the politicising of GW;
The power of government should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do.
Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]
Pathetic to take Feynman’s quotes to try to defend climate change denial. I would love to be able to bring Feynman back at let him lose on the deniers. He would be all over their BS arguments. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
I particularly like this one;
I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.
One more for the politicising of GW;
The power of government should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do.
Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]
Gandahar said:
This whole thread saying AGW is anti science reminds me of the Catholic church and Galileo.
If you don't like the current understanding from the majority at this age then you are wrong.
Note I believe in AGW.
I just don't like this thread and the bad vibe against scientists and people who don't believe in a postulate.
It's more political than scientific and needs to be cast asunder to another part of the forum.
The sooner it can be brushed under the carpet so my scientific eyes don't see it again then more the merrier.
It's poppycock and you, Esceptico, should be ashamed on putting it on here in the first place, trying to force your views rather than just reporting just science.
You seem to have missed the point of this thread entirely. Most people who are climate change deniers - like all those on PH - are not climate scientists. They do not do climate science. Just like most anti-evolutionists are not biologists. This has nothing to do with the actual science. It is about people who can’t accept a scientific consensus (evolution/AGW) because it conflicts with an important personal belief and if true would have consequences they don’t want to accept ie perhaps the bible isn’t literally true/perhaps humanity needs to stop burning fossil fuels. Having tussled with both religious fanatics and climate change deniers I noted very similar approaches in their methods - even down to the criticisms that the “consensus” over evolution being anti science because it is stifling debate! If you don't like the current understanding from the majority at this age then you are wrong.
Note I believe in AGW.
I just don't like this thread and the bad vibe against scientists and people who don't believe in a postulate.
It's more political than scientific and needs to be cast asunder to another part of the forum.
The sooner it can be brushed under the carpet so my scientific eyes don't see it again then more the merrier.
It's poppycock and you, Esceptico, should be ashamed on putting it on here in the first place, trying to force your views rather than just reporting just science.
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 18th January 16:34
Gandahar said:
And as I said before I believe in AGW.
But this is just slating people off for having another view.
That is not scientific debate.
Either you don’t understand what I’ve written or you are being disingenuous. But this is just slating people off for having another view.
That is not scientific debate.
I was going to write a reply then realised that this Wiki piece covers most of what I wanted to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denia...
It is a good read because it covers 80-90% of the denier BS arguments on PH and highlights the various different types of denial, also represented on here, from those not accepting anything, to those accepting the climate is changing but it is natural, etc.
It is obvious to the true skeptic that AGW denial is not science because its proponents aren’t interested in the truth or science as all evidence of AGW is ignored with desperate attempts to shore up their position by reference to fringe scientists and YouTube videos.
The parallel with creationism and proponents of ID is also clear with similar tactics adopted by both groups. Both groups portraying themselves as the valiant bearers of the truth that is being suppressed by a global conspiracy (biologists and atheists / climate scientists). Both claim that there is no “consensus” and that such a consensus is anti science.
It is perhaps not surprising that anti evolution and AGW denial is strong in the US, which is infected with right wing Christian fundamentalists. And also not surprising that more rational and secular countries in Northern Europe are the most accepting of AGW and evolution.
Gandahar said:
And there was me saying I would not write on this non scientific thread again. New evidence has come to light though, ie this post.
Firstly let me say 3 things.
1. Your posts are always well written.
2. You have some good points above on the politics / geographies / modern interconnected society
3;. You still don't present a scientific argument why AGW denial is anti-science.
Your argument is purely 2. As you stated above.
On this science part of the forum to claim that AGW is anti-science you have to back it up scientifically. Rather than just what you think or the masses.
Can you do that?
Science is a process whereby we gain knowledge. Observation of some aspect of the physical world leads to recognition of patterns and hypotheses about relationships that often be expressed mathematically. Experiments are devised to test the hypotheses. If the hypotheses pass they are temporarily accepted as true. They may fail other experiments which leads to a refinement of the hypotheses or completely new ones eg general/special relativity replaced Newton’s laws of gravity and motion (although in normal life Newtons equations still work). Firstly let me say 3 things.
1. Your posts are always well written.
2. You have some good points above on the politics / geographies / modern interconnected society
3;. You still don't present a scientific argument why AGW denial is anti-science.
Your argument is purely 2. As you stated above.
On this science part of the forum to claim that AGW is anti-science you have to back it up scientifically. Rather than just what you think or the masses.
Can you do that?
In real science, scientists observe. They don’t impose their beliefs on reality and try to make reality fit those beliefs. In real science new data causes scientists to change their position and discard hypotheses that are shown to be wrong.
Creationism is anti science because creationists “know” the answer in advance. God created the world and everything in it. They work backwards from the answer to try to justify it (or at least try to undermine evolution).
In general AGW denial is the same as creationism. You can see it most of the posts from the deniers in here. They just refuse to believe in AGW and all their effort is spent trying to find evidence to support their preconceived position (or try to pick holes in climate science). The Wiki article I linked to set out some of the main ways that is achieved but you can see deniers refusing to accept any work done by climate change scientists, quoting extremists or a limited band of scientists (often not climate specialists) who deny AGW.
No doubt the deniers on here will say I have some semi-religious affiliation with AGW but such claims are bizarre. I don’t want AGW to be true. I love cars and bikes at least as much as the rest of the PH community. I’m about to buy another 2 stroke bike partly because I love the smell of burnt oil!
Fossil fuels have been behind the rapid development of human technology and economies. But being a rationalist and scientist at heart (even if I moved into finance) I can’t let my desire for AGW to be false divert me from accepting reality. If someone can prove scientifically that AGW is wrong I would be happy (such proof of course would have to explain why the global temperature is increasing and why a doubling of CO2 isn’t behind it).
Gandahar said:
I like the way you flipped from a good reply and sounding sensible until half way down on the science side and then flipped to your political bent.
You just can't help it can you
For the nth time, you are a politician rather than a scientist.
Keep going ......
:yawn:
You seem unable to help yourself from being obtuse. The reason AGW denial is not science is it is driven by pre-existing personal (political) beliefs like creationism is driven by religious belief. You just can't help it can you
For the nth time, you are a politician rather than a scientist.
Keep going ......
:yawn:
Your inability or unwillingness to actual address any of my points shows where your heart lies on this debate.
stew-STR160 said:
Esceptico said:
The reason AGW denial is not science is it is driven by pre-existing personal (political) beliefs like creationism is driven by religious belief.
Thanks for the anti endorsement. I would be worried if the denier brigade actually agreed with something I wrote. Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.
[quote=Gadgetmac]I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?
Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".[/quote
Even if you could get them to give an answer and you then met the test they would just ignore it and move onto other arguments (I’ve seen this with creationists). That is why they are deniers and not skeptics. They don’t want to accept AGW. Everything they say and do has to fit in with that premise.
Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".[/quote
Even if you could get them to give an answer and you then met the test they would just ignore it and move onto other arguments (I’ve seen this with creationists). That is why they are deniers and not skeptics. They don’t want to accept AGW. Everything they say and do has to fit in with that premise.
Kawasicki said:
It’s not proof of causality, it would be a cause for concern for me though.
I think warming in any region of about 1.5C per decade, for 5 decades in a row would be unprecedented.
I’d accept any unadjusted data from regularly calibrated instruments that measure in a reasonable way (so averaged over a reasonable timeframe...one second maximum temperature spikes would be ignored)
Coincidental that you choose a ridiculous level of warming that would be impossible to experience?I think warming in any region of about 1.5C per decade, for 5 decades in a row would be unprecedented.
I’d accept any unadjusted data from regularly calibrated instruments that measure in a reasonable way (so averaged over a reasonable timeframe...one second maximum temperature spikes would be ignored)
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff