AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
This an interesting and impartial take on the top protagonists on both sides of the divide. Reading some the leading skeptics who have since stepped back due to politicisation and ad hominem attack is telling. I suppose some would consider them to be anti science....
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-ch...
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-ch...
HarryW said:
This an interesting and impartial take on the top protagonists on both sides of the divide. Reading some the leading skeptics who have since stepped back due to politicisation and ad hominem attack is telling. I suppose some would consider them to be anti science....
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-ch...
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-ch...
Had a quick scan will read in full when i get chance.GroundZero said:
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.
Very much this.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.
The thread title is wrong - unwavering agw belief is inherently unscientific.
Also agreed that ‘anti-science’ is not a scientific term
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.AshVX220 said:
Indeed, for me it is based on a few well known facts.
The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
kerplunk said:
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.Because they don't fit me at all, apart from the reds under the beds bit, which we should all be in fear of.
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.Because they don't fit me at all, apart from the reds under the beds bit, which we should all be in fear of.
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.Because they don't fit me at all, apart from the reds under the beds bit, which we should all be in fear of.
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.Because they don't fit me at all, apart from the reds under the beds bit, which we should all be in fear of.
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.Because they don't fit me at all, apart from the reds under the beds bit, which we should all be in fear of.
The fear of reds under the bed comes from seeing what they've done in the past, and the vocal minorities now pushing for that stuff again to save the polar bears etc.
Personally, it's not a serious fear of the reds, rather it's more an awareness of the dangers of what they could unleash given the opportunity.
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
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.
Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.Because they don't fit me at all, apart from the reds under the beds bit, which we should all be in fear of.
The fear of reds under the bed comes from seeing what they've done in the past, and the vocal minorities now pushing for that stuff again to save the polar bears etc.
Personally, it's not a serious fear of the reds, rather it's more an awareness of the dangers of what they could unleash given the opportunity.
And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
kerplunk said:
Ok fine. Now about those libertarians... complete and utter BS? You must be blind.
And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
OK, fine, put me in that camp too if you want. However, government is needed, as is regulation, and the UN is fine, within reason. And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
Ok fine. Now about those libertarians... complete and utter BS? You must be blind.
And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
OK, fine, put me in that camp too if you want. However, government is needed, as is regulation, and the UN is fine, within reason. And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
John Locke said:
AshVX220 said:
Indeed, for me it is based on a few well known facts.
The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
Ok fine. Now about those libertarians... complete and utter BS? You must be blind.
And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
OK, fine, put me in that camp too if you want. However, government is needed, as is regulation, and the UN is fine, within reason. And before you say it - I already know examples non-AGW-denying libertarians.
Terminator X said:
John Locke said:
AshVX220 said:
Indeed, for me it is based on a few well known facts.
The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
The models aren't good enough;
Data going into the models has been proven to be manipulated to give the right answer;
The models are focussed on CO2, abandoning literally all other elements that may have a bearing on the result;
Those that are "on message" openly attack those that question the message;
They even had a huge e-mail leak which identified the levels they'll go to in order to halt any question of their belief;
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Plus and yet again I don't understand how so many people that are proponents of AGW need to be told;
Consensus is not scientific, dodgy models aren't scientific and finally, as none of the projections have yet been observed it is at the very most a theory, not even a proven science.......yet, hey, lets spend trillions on it, just in case, that money would be better spent on actual environmental issues and helping those in real world poverty around the world...not lining the pockets of solar farm or windmill developers.
Promoting the work of that young lad that's developed a system to remove plastic from the sea, rather than promoting the angry anxiety driven rantings of a 17 year old girl, would be a far better use of the money.
Its simply yet another case of "project fear", which is the usual "go to" narrative when politicians want everyone to align with their agenda.
AshVX220 said:
All projections relating to the science have not been observed.
Well, apart from global warming obviously.AshVX220 said:
The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.
Sure your evaluations of the science are clealy objective - no denialism here.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff