AGW denial is anti-science

[Toltec]

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

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.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.

I would hope he would be just as scathing of the climate cultists misusing the science too. Not that I can speak for him the same way as our psychic friend above.

[HarryW]

Esceptico said:

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.

Pathetic, there’s a first, never been called that before. I’m not really surprised the quotes invoked an ad hominem response though.

Look at what the thread title is, what you have just typed and what the quotes actually are then come back when you’ve calmed down.

[Kawasicki]

I believe in the ignorance of climate experts.

[Derek Smith]

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]

Nice words, but I'm with the chap who asked what Feyman would have said about climate change deniers.

It's simple enough.

1/ Is there evidence for global climate change?

2/ If so, is it the normal climatic change we've been subject to for billions of years?

3/ If not, why not?

4/ Whichever the answer, is it possible 'we' have some effect on the rate of change?

5/ If so, can we change what we do to slow/negate it?

6/ If 'we' have no effect on the rate of climate change, what can we do to slow/negate the rate of change?

There would appear to be enough evidence of climate change to prove it. It would appear that the rate of change we are suffering is unprecedented. The argument seems to revolve around why it is so rapid.

I see no argument to suggest that man's activities in increasing greenhouse gases have no effect of global climate. Whether it is the main one, a significant one, or a minor one is open to argument.

I can't see any reason why 'we' should not be able to slow/halt/reverse climate change. It's a challenge, but that's what we do.

The level of argument on PH is not unimpeachable. We had one on the Australian fires who said that Oz his not suffering a record heatwave as a relative of his recorded a higher temperature some years ago. I thought first of all that the post was ironic. After all, 'My uncle Kevin's patio thermometer showed 52 degrees' is a bit off the wall, but checking back on past post shows it unlikely.

[Gandahar]

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.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 18th January 16:34

[Gandahar]

Esceptico said:

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.

Which proves my point.

Use a Feynman diagram to move to the politics section of the forum please ...... hopefully no anti Esceptico particle will be produced, unless an annihilation occurs

[Esceptico]

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.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 18th January 16:34

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!

[Gandahar]

Esceptico said:

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.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 18th January 16:34

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!

Your entire paragraph above is more "confirming my whole world belief" rather than science, which is challenging that.

You sound like a politician who wants to be right.





Rather than a scientist who wants people to prove him wrong






You're on the wrong thread mate.

Not sure how long it will take you to realise this with this ill thought out diatribe...... you're not getting many worshipers around here with your religion.

As the AGW threads on here are mainly poppycock due to ingrained bigoted stand points so is this.


A science thread needs some science and enlightenment .... for us to learn.

Just sayin....

You said

"You seem to have missed the point of this thread entirely."

No.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE PUT A THREAD ON THE SCIENCE FORUM WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE.

Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 29th January 18:59

[Gandahar]

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.

[Terminator X]

Esceptico said:

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!

There isn't a consensus. You need to read some more.

TX.

[Gadgetmac]

Terminator X said:

Esceptico said:

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!

There isn't a consensus. You need to read some more.

TX.

Of course there's a consensus. You need to watch less you tube videos.

[HarryW]

Gadgetmac said:

Terminator X said:

Esceptico said:

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!

There isn't a consensus. You need to read some more.

TX.

Of course there's a consensus. You need to watch less you tube videos.

8 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas....

[Esceptico]

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.

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.

[PRTVR]

Esceptico said:

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, due to being infected with left wing fundamentalists.

Edited to make it clearer.

[Derek Smith]

PRTVR said:

Esceptico said:

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, due to being infected with left wing fundamentalists.

Edited to make it clearer.

Evolution is left wing? Well, you learn something new every day.

[PRTVR]

Derek Smith said:

PRTVR said:

Esceptico said:

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, due to being infected with left wing fundamentalists.

Edited to make it clearer.

Evolution is left wing? Well, you learn something new every day.

No but AGW is.

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

Derek Smith said:

PRTVR said:

Esceptico said:

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, due to being infected with left wing fundamentalists.

Edited to make it clearer.

Evolution is left wing? Well, you learn something new every day.

No but AGW is.

Bloody communist Tory party!

[kerplunk]

It's well known that reality has a liberal bias

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reality-has-a-liber...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/conservape...

[Terminator X]

Gadgetmac said:

Terminator X said:

Esceptico said:

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!

There isn't a consensus. You need to read some more.

TX.

Of course there's a consensus. You need to watch less you tube videos.

The 97% thing is total BS as you well know. What else you got on the "consensus"?

TX.

[Gadgetmac]

Terminator X said:

Gadgetmac said:

Terminator X said:

Esceptico said:

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!

There isn't a consensus. You need to read some more.

TX.

Of course there's a consensus. You need to watch less you tube videos.

The 97% thing is total BS as you well know. What else you got on the "consensus"?

TX.

Grasping.

97% of peer reviewed literature either endorsed or did not deny AGW. A similar result is true for plate tectonics.

Those that don't explicitly deny plate tectonics are still deemed to support it.

This has been looked at again and is even more robust today.

You can only get a handful of scientists who are actively publishing to deny AGW and they are usually tainted by association to big oil. We all know who they are as they are the same ones quoted all of the time by deniers on here. Indeed a list of them was produced in 2018 in the politics thread.

Please let me have your list of Scientific Institutions who deny AGW.

You can't, there aren't any.