AGW denial is anti-science

[Esceptico]

Reading the comments of the AGW deniers on various threads it is striking to me how similar they 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 deniers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They seem through out that natural variation can affect global warming (I’m not sure any serious climatologist disputes 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 current theories linking it mainly to increase in greenhouse gases. However, and crucially, given that CO2 has increased and is known to be a greenhouse gas they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in CO2 have not led to an increase in global temperatures.

What is most frustrating about deniers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of AGW 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.

[Esceptico]

Terminator X said:

What do you say about the "predictions" made 15-20 years ago that never happened? Al Gore for example.

TX.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Classic denier response. You have not addressed the points I raised in my post but instead have come back with an irrelevant question.

Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.

Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?

Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).

[Esceptico]

nammynake said:

To “deny” would imply that anthropogenic warning is empirically proven (to a high degree of certainty e.g. a 99.9% confidence interval). It is not; therefore there is nothing to deny. Unless you are referring to the ‘97% consensus’ nonsense which is often spouted? I wonder if CERN will in future move to a consensus-based approach when asking us to believe in new fundamental particles?

And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution.

If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?

[Esceptico]

Piersman2 said:

Yawn, fking yawn.

So bored of people pushing their beliefs all the time and calling out anyone who doesn't share the faith as being ignorant and ill educated.

Seems to be the way of the world tese days though.

And another classic. Exactly what the anti evolution and religious say: atheism/evolution is just a belief system

[Esceptico]

nammynake said:

Esceptico said:

And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution.

If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?

Another classic “believer” response. Tell me, why are you so sure of AGW? If you’re a scientist you may have an opinion but not empirical evidence. If you’re simply a follower, who do you follow and why?

Why would I “believe” in AGW? I don’t believe in evolution. Or plate techtonics. Or special and general relativity. I accept the scientific consensus for those three areas. I am not an expert in those areas but they seem reasonable, they explain phenomena and are supported by more than one stream of evidence. If better theories are developed that do a better job of explaining reality I will accept those too.

[Esceptico]

elanfan said:

Why do people use 3 letter abbreviations from the outset of a post without ever defining what it means. I for one haven’t a clue what AGW is, maybe I’m ignorant but I tell you what I can’t be arsed to look it up.

I’m oot!

It took longer to write your post that to type AGW in google.

Clue: it’s a trigger word/phrase for some on here

[Esceptico]

visitinglondon said:

Have you tried mumsnet?

Might be more your type of thing.

Sorry to have invaded your echo chamber with reason. perhaps you should move forums - I’m sure there are plenty of conspiracy theory sites out there.

[Esceptico]

phil-sti said:

Esceptico said:

Terminator X said:

What do you say about the "predictions" made 15-20 years ago that never happened? Al Gore for example.

TX.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Classic denier response. You have not addressed the points I raised in my post but instead have come back with an irrelevant question.

Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.

Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?

Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).

And yet you only picked this argument for a reply and not the one on the actual validity of the research results.

No I did answer it directly by saying that 20-30 years ago there were a number of models with different predictions and with different levels of probability. There were no reputable models that said “by year X then Y will definitely happen”. You are trying to build a straw man argument by claiming the opposite.

[Esceptico]

Oilchange said:

I suspect that there is far too much money involved for any sensible conclusion to be reached.
Just ask Al Gore...

Over and over again, anyone who criticises the believer is belittled as a classic denier. Its frankly patronising.

Why the references do Al Gore? This is science thread not the NPE never ending CC thread.

[Esceptico]

Terminator X said:

Esceptico said:

And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution.

If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?

It seems you understand very little about the "97% consensus" .

TX.

I don’t understand the conspiracy theory article trying to pick apart the study that came up with 97%? No I understand that.

Anyway what matters more is that there are hundreds of respectable, scientific organisations that endorse AGW eg NASA, Royal Academy of Science. It’s a long list. Can you name one recognised institution that publicly says they don’t endorse AGW? Just one for starters?

[Esceptico]

FredClogs said:

I'm not religious or a theist and have an engineering degree (it's like science but more useful) and I don't really swallow the whole Darwinian evolution natural selection theory. I think the punctuated equilibrian theory (long periods of homeostasis in species interspersed with short periods of very rapid change caused by changes in environment or random nutation) much more likely.

That isn’t comparable with AGW denial. The mechanism behind PET is 100% the same as the more widely accepted phyletic gradualism approach: both are based on natural selection. The argument is about the pace of change: large over short periods or more gradual over longer periods. That isn’t the same as AGW deniers claiming that either that temperatures have not increased or that human activity (release of greenhouse gases, deforestation, etc) is primarily responsible for a significant increase in global temperatures (with the obvious corollary that continuing to do so will lead to further temperature increases).

AGW deniers or akin to those arguing for Lamarckism or Intelligent Design.

[Esceptico]

Toltec said:

All this denier stuff harms the discussion, all these attacks on the heretics by the true believers just forces a greater separation. Personally I think climate science has come a long way, but a too much of it still relies on spherical chickens in a vacuum to be taken as an accurate predictive model yet.

Edited by Toltec on Sunday 27th October 11:22

You are being disingenuous. I am not talking about disputes between genuine climate scientists about the extent of AGW and accuracy of modelling and the underlying assumptions and I suspect you know it. I am talking of those who flatly reject AGW. As above they are like those supporting Lamarckism or Intelligent Design. They are not rationally weighing up evidence. They are not moved by new information as they have already made up their mind and any new information (like old) is dismisses by various absurd conspiracy theories.

[Esceptico]

drmotorsport said:

Yes I remember the 80's ice age warnings too.

It seems that humans need a shadowy bogeyman to have a religious belief in, either old school Devil, or new school Man Made Climate Change (insert this weeks favoured branding here). There's a lot of vested interest ranging from selling newspapers, to taxing the proles, or just plain old fashioned power and control over the population.

FWIW the planet will still be here spinning after our sorry arses have gone, so doesn't need saving thanks. In the meantime to prolong our tenancy on this rock maybe it would good if we could all just be nice to each other eh?

The vast majority of people that accept and are concerned by AGW are not eco warriors worried about Mother Earth. Outside stupid fantasies about moving to Mars or some other god forsaken inhospitable rock, the only known place in the Universe that can support human life is Earth. We are not worried about the ability of Earth to support life in general. The vast majority of life is single cell and they will survive. We are worried about the ability to support human life as we know it now. I like living in a safe, relatively free society with lots of luxuries. Most societies across most of human history have not been so great. The vast majority of people alive today live in poverty and/or under repressive regimes. I’m not anxious to join them.

[Esceptico]

DickyC said:

drmotorsport said:

Yes I remember the 80's ice age warnings too.

The 60's in my case.



But the message is the same. We need something to worry about.

Pity it is a lie. The media grabbed hold of the idea of global cooling but there was never a majority of climate scientists that supported the idea. It just made great headlines in the US that was experiencing some cold weather.

https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...

Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?

[Esceptico]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-clima...

This New Scientist article is quite old but depressingly if you go down the list of myths it seems that pretty much all the bullst claims that keep reappearing on this thread and others are on the list.

Despite being debunked they don’t seem to be going away. Like an oversized turd in the toilet.

[Esceptico]

DickyC said:

Esceptico said:

Pity it is a lie. The media grabbed hold of the idea of global cooling but there was never a majority of climate scientists that supported the idea. It just made great headlines in the US that was experiencing some cold weather.

https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...

Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?

There was no scientific evidence. It was a story in newspapers and on the television. A scare story.

Then why are you bringing it up in the debate about AGW?

[Esceptico]

Terminator X said:

Do you seriously think we have a "problem" in the next 10 years? 50? 100? 200? Has it ever been so hot recently (say the last million years) that humans could not survive? Why do you think (if you do) that whatever happens will threaten human life itself?

TX.

A few points.

Accepting that AGW is happening does not mean you have to accept the predictions of what is going to happen in the future nor what we should do about it. The latter is definitely up for discussion.

I don’t agree with the eco warriors on most points. However, having looked at the evidence available I find it impossible to deny that AGW is most likely true.

I don’t think AGW presents a threat to humans surviving. I do think it represents a major threat to our standard of living. If you have visited the third world (as we used to call it) you realise how good our lives are in the west. I don’t think the peace and prosperity most people in Europe or the US have experienced in the past 50 years should be taken for granted.

I do fear that changes in the climate, together with population growth, will result in humanitarian disasters in countries closer to the equator and mass migration north towards cooler areas. I don’t think that bodes well for Europe. That is rather a selfish view I agree. I can’t help it. I am just human. I put my family and my close circle of friends first.

I used to think that climate change wouldn’t have much of an impact in my life time but I am worried that previous predictions have been too optimistic and that change is happening much faster than anticipated (more accurately one should say the changes are within the range of forecast outcomes but at the top of the range, rather than in the middle).

Accepting that AGW is happening doesn’t put me in a privileged position when trying to figure out what could be done. Personally I think there are probably technical solutions to AGW but none of them are remotely possible from a political perspective.

[Esceptico]

V10leptoquark said:

Esceptico said:

....
What is most frustrating about deniers .......

Yawn....

The problem is more or less summed up in the quoted line from your post.
Labelling people whilst being totally entrenched in your own belief - on a matter of what should be science.

To accept what science is one must accept that theories are are a model of observation - which are up for scrutiny in order they can be improved or shot down for being wrong.

Your position on the matter is quite clear, you see MMGW as a 'fact' which can not be scrutinised under the process of accepted methods of science. Therefore you have a religion - something that becomes blasphemy if challenged.

Your choice of words in your post makes this quite clear. And at the same time very tiresome because as with all religions, they will refuse to accept an alternative reality.

Bingo. The next predictable comment that religious nuts use when you question Intelligent Design ie “atheism/evolution is just a belief and you atheists/scientists are inflexible and won’t accept “alternative” truths.”

I don’t want AGW to be true. Quite the opposite. I would be very happy to see climate scientists proved wrong.

[Esceptico]

JuniorD said:

For someone who merely considers that AGW is most likely true you do go on a lot.

I shudder to think what you would be like if you knew it to be true.

The climate change science and politics threads - mainly populated by frothing at the mouth deniers - have been going on for years, using the same debunked arguments. Yet I post on here for about a week and I’m the one that is droning on? Suggest you lot look in the mirror.

[Esceptico]

JuniorD said:

Mankind has had a seriously devastating effect on our planet's environment however to think that we can affect the temperature at every spot on the earth to a degree that is more significant than what mother nature and/or the sun are capable of is an illusory correlation as a result of our own deluded sense of importance.

The next recycled creationist argument: the appeal to incredulity. In their case: how could something as complex as an eye evolve? For deniers: how could human activity have such an impact?

A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).

Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.