AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
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.
Lol 10,000 papers about global warming, 9700 of them make no comment about man made anything. Of the 300 left 97% of them suggested mans impact. Simple maths then 291 / 10000 = 3% not 97%. The media of course (and you it seems) continue to parade that as the "consensus".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.
Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
Very simply no one, bar a loon, would doubt climate change, which is currently warming. Likewise man polluting and poisoning the planet. These are important issues that need consideration and action where necessary.
What it doesn’t need is the conflation of everything climate and the planets health by zealots into Anthropogenic Global Warming that raises the doubt/scepticism and hinders progress.
I actually think Derek Smith got closest in his summation earlier in the thread.
What it doesn’t need is the conflation of everything climate and the planets health by zealots into Anthropogenic Global Warming that raises the doubt/scepticism and hinders progress.
I actually think Derek Smith got closest in his summation earlier in the thread.
Terminator X said:
Lol 10,000 papers about global warming, 9700 of them make no comment about man made anything. Of the 300 left 97% of them suggested mans impact. Simple maths then 291 / 10000 = 3% not 97%. The media of course (and you it seems) continue to parade that as the "consensus".
Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
You're not the sharpest tool are you.Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
A similar study was done looking at papers on plate tectonics and 71% of papers didn't endorse it.
BUT NOBODY IS DENYING PLATE TECTONICS.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...
Likewise because papers don't explicitly endorse AGW the papers authors are not denying it.
So no you can't equally lump no comment as no support.
Start listing a few scientific institutions that don't support AGW. Just a few. I'll wait.
Terminator X said:
Gadgetmac said:
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.
Lol 10,000 papers about global warming, 9700 of them make no comment about man made anything. Of the 300 left 97% of them suggested mans impact. Simple maths then 291 / 10000 = 3% not 97%. The media of course (and you it seems) continue to parade that as the "consensus".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.
Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
Edited by dickymint on Thursday 30th January 22:27
dickymint said:
Terminator X said:
Gadgetmac said:
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.
Lol 10,000 papers about global warming, 9700 of them make no comment about man made anything. Of the 300 left 97% of them suggested mans impact. Simple maths then 291 / 10000 = 3% not 97%. The media of course (and you it seems) continue to parade that as the "consensus".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.
Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
I've put myself under house arrest so I can't comment any further on this thread as I may be getting too narrow minded due to objecting to the initial premise. Us fence sitters .......
I would have been terrible in the 1920s during the Quantum Mechanic debates. My typewriter ribbon would've been earning it's keep !
I would have been terrible in the 1920s during the Quantum Mechanic debates. My typewriter ribbon would've been earning it's keep !
Esceptico said:
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.
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?
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).
Esceptico, scientists also are very careful to define all the terminology that they use so that everyone knows exactly what they are talking about.
Unfortunately, pretty well all popular debate about climate change chucks around terms like AGW and CC as if they are equivalent, and for that matter rarely specify a time frame either, which as it is the discussion of a 'rate' of change is quite remarkable.
Until people, including those on this forum, tighten up on this there will never be a rational debate. In the meantime we will carry on doing what Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty did, and say, "words mean what I want them to mean, no more, no less."
Unfortunately, pretty well all popular debate about climate change chucks around terms like AGW and CC as if they are equivalent, and for that matter rarely specify a time frame either, which as it is the discussion of a 'rate' of change is quite remarkable.
Until people, including those on this forum, tighten up on this there will never be a rational debate. In the meantime we will carry on doing what Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty did, and say, "words mean what I want them to mean, no more, no less."
Esceptico said:
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).
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).
If it is science it doesn't require belief. Have you ever heard of Wizard's First Rule? - first in a series of novels (Sword of truth) by Terry Goodkind (turned into a terrible series for TV). The rule though is more a psychological observation: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).
Zed said:
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
You ask for a proof that AGW is false without first finding proof that it is true (consensus is not proof, correlation is not proof, 97% of surveys are not proof 
). I have no problem with increasing CO2 causing a theoretical 1 degrees per doubling (what the actual science claims) unfortunately for AGW to be a problem this needs to be enhanced by an increase of water vapour in the atmosphere to 3 degrees per doubling. There is no evidence of this happening. What has distinctly failed to be shown is that AGW is a problem and that even on the off chance it is, on a cost benefit analysis, would not adaptation be a far better strategy than mitigation?
Jinx said:
Zed said:
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
Halb said:
Jinx said:
Zed said:
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
Esceptico said:
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).
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).
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. 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).
You just can't help it can you
For the nth time, you are a politician rather than a scientist.
Keep going ......
:yawn:
Referring to the OP title of this thread I would say that to use the word "denial" in the hypothesis of AGW is very much "anti-science".
To me, science is the inclusion of all conclusions derived from an evidence approached derivation. The science will then hold those conclusions that then continue to match ongoing evidence to be more relevant than those that don't.
Trying to use the word "denial" within the realm of science is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the scientific process. ie. "anti-science" if it can be termed as that.
To me, science is the inclusion of all conclusions derived from an evidence approached derivation. The science will then hold those conclusions that then continue to match ongoing evidence to be more relevant than those that don't.
Trying to use the word "denial" within the realm of science is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the scientific process. ie. "anti-science" if it can be termed as that.
Gadgetmac said:
Terminator X said:
Lol 10,000 papers about global warming, 9700 of them make no comment about man made anything. Of the 300 left 97% of them suggested mans impact. Simple maths then 291 / 10000 = 3% not 97%. The media of course (and you it seems) continue to parade that as the "consensus".
Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
You're not the sharpest tool are you.Interesting that you lump "no comment" as support though! You could equally lump "no comment" as no support? Neither leap would be factual of course.
As far as your regular "Scientific Institutions" googly, there is little to no point even looking it up as your standard response is Big Oil.
It isn't even close to being the same as plate tectonics + what on earth are you even talking about? Plate tectonics isn't man made or is that what you are suggesting?
TX.
A similar study was done looking at papers on plate tectonics and 71% of papers didn't endorse it.
BUT NOBODY IS DENYING PLATE TECTONICS.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...
Likewise because papers don't explicitly endorse AGW the papers authors are not denying it.
So no you can't equally lump no comment as no support.
Start listing a few scientific institutions that don't support AGW. Just a few. I'll wait.
why would I get your cryptic reference to plate tectonics ffs hence me asking you what you meant.The fact is that the 97% consensus is not true. Every time consensus is mentioned it goes back to those original 10k papers with no context.
We can all bang up articles supporting our position, here are a few that disagree with yours:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/f...
https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/97%25-consensus
https://climatechangedispatch.com/debunking-97-per...
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/the-97-c...
TX.
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff