Science denial in the 21st century

Catawba said:

That's just another tactic used by deniers, making false charges to try to discredit the scientific consensus.

Click to expand...

He is a denier . . . no matter how much he claims he isn't. His entire posting history proves that. He went politically correct without changing his source material. Phony as phony can get.

DiavoTheMiavo said:

Then why do you deny climate change in so many of your posts? I play at being confused with you . . . you actually appear confused because you take two stances in every Climate Change thread. Seriously, that you do not see yourself taking two sides is slightly amusing.

Click to expand...

This is just playing to the gallery now. My position is very clear to anyone who wants to understand it

DiavoTheMiavo said:

He is a denier . . . no matter how much he claims he isn't. His entire posting history proves that. He went politically correct without changing his source material. Phony as phony can get.

Click to expand...

So you are simply another congregation member. Thanks for finally making clear what your alleged 'confusion' was really all about :roll:

flogger said:

This is just playing to the gallery now. My position is very clear to anyone who wants to understand it

Click to expand...

Oh we are very clear on your position! You deny the proven scientific principle - the greenhouse effect, and you deny the worldwide scientific consensus of AGW since 2007.

Catawba said:

Oh we are very clear on your position! You deny the proven scientific principle - the greenhouse effect, and you deny the worldwide scientific consensus of AGW since 2007.

Click to expand...

Instead of endless repetition of the same alarmist sound bites how about that Peer review study empirically (as in non modelled) linking human activity with global temperature ? Without that your position is ultimately just politicized hype nothing more

flogger said:

Of course such a non academic opportunist shyster is well qualified to judge what is and isnt a valid Peer review study right ? I wonder how much he got paid for this one ? :roll:



Best take a few more minutes before falling flat on your face next time . There is no empirical evidence being presented here but there is a whole load of speculation and assertion based on model constructs which arent empirical evidence of anything but the modellers own guesses. Take away the models you take away the crisis ,based on current observational data and the paleoclimatic record of recent millenia, and unlike the models that is real verifiable data.

Click to expand...

First thing - the website is FUNDED by the man who was convicted of facilitating money transfers for online gambling, which, as I noted previously, is LEGAL in much of the modern world - just not in the US.

It is not run by that person


Second: Your continuing denial of reality does cause one to wonder how much you are paid by those corporate interests that might, someday, possibly see some economic damage owing to necessary governmental actions to remediate past human behaviour.

Do you really believe that the tens of thousands of researchers in climatology are just making up ****? You apparently refuse to accept models which use observational data to create predictive methods. You also don't seem to understand that "paleoclimate" doesn't just cover "recent millenia" but is instead the science of the far more distant past and as a consequence uses time scales that shrink our modern period down to that tiny little tick at the very end. Also in looking at those past eras in which the earth was warmer, you seem to ignore the data showing higher CO2 concentrations and the position of the earth in the Milankovitch cycle which you have referenced.

At this time, the earth should be cooling as those two factors, often cited by the deniers, Milankovitch cycle and solar forcing, are both favourable to global cooling - so why are we getting warmer?

Somerville said:

Your continuing denial of reality does cause one to wonder how much you are paid by those corporate interests that might, someday, possibly see some economic damage owing to necessary governmental actions to remediate past human behaviour.

Click to expand...

What reality are you referring to because climate models arent reality ?

Do you really believe that the tens of thousands of researchers in climatology are just making up ****?

Click to expand...

No just being grossly misrepresented to suit political ends

You apparently refuse to accept models which use observational data to create predictive methods.

Click to expand...

No I reject models that claim to be definitive when in point of fact we cannot model such major variables as clouds and water vapour, which represent 95% of the Earths greenhouse gases. They as a consequence represent pure subjective guesswork nothing more and here is why

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

Given the whole dodgy hypothesis rests on these constructs it all ends right there really

You also don't seem to understand that "paleoclimate" doesn't just cover "recent millenia" but is instead the science of the far more distant past and as a consequence uses time scales that shrink our modern period down to that tiny little tick at the very end. Also in looking at those past eras in which the earth was warmer, you seem to ignore the data showing higher CO2 concentrations and the position of the earth in the Milankovitch cycle which you have referenced.At this time, the earth should be cooling as those two factors, often cited by the deniers, Milankovitch cycle and solar forcing, are both favourable to global cooling - so why are we getting warmer?

Click to expand...

So you accept natural warming phases from recent millenia but reject todays relatively modest heating could be natural ? Gotcha ! Believe whatever fits your agenda . You do realise the lengthy timescale of the Milankovitch cycles makes them pretty irrelevant to the current phase now dont you ? Its a red herring

flogger said:

What reality are you referring to ?



No just being grossly misrepresented to suit political ends



No I reject models that claim to be definitive when in point of fact we cannot model such major variables as clouds and water vapour, which represent 95% of the Earths greenhouse gases. They as a consequence represent pure subjective guesswork nothing more and here is why

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

Given the whole dodgy hypothesis rests on these constructs it all ends right there really



So you accept natural warming phases from recent millenia but reject todays relatively modest heating could be natural ? Gotcha ! Believe whatever fits your agenda . You do realise the lengthy timescale of the Milankovitch cycles makes them pretty irrelevant to the current phase now dont you ? Its a red herring

Click to expand...

Your C3 chart is a joke - not a single reference supplied for any of the 50 claims, just bald assertion of validity without support.

As "today's relatively modest heating" does not fit the causes known for any of the earlier periods when the earth was as warm or warmer, and the far more detailed observational data currently available does supply objective causes for our present warming trend, and as I stated earlier those factors known to have contributed to warming in the distant past are presently at minimum levels - yeah, I think your continuing defence of the indefensible does cause questions as to motivation.

The deniers tactics bear great resemblance to such methods used in the past to deny reality: the pro-tobacco lobby from the 1950s thru the 1980s and the on-going anti-evolution science of various religiously-motivated groups.

Catawba said:

Back to the see-saw are you? When confronted with the scientific consensus, claim conspiracy by the scientists.

Too bad you lack any credibility whatsoever!

Click to expand...

I have shown you that there is no scientific consensus.

In fact, this issue is very contentious, there is no consensus whatsoever.

And the people on one side of the issue had their e-mails leaked. Those e-mails proved that they are untrustworthy.

Nothing they publish can be trusted.

Muhammed said:

I have shown you that there is no scientific consensus.

In fact, this issue is very contentious, there is no consensus whatsoever.

And the people on one side of the issue had their e-mails leaked. Those e-mails proved that they are untrustworthy.

Nothing they publish can be trusted.

Click to expand...

You have shown nothing more than a willingness to be led by the nose by people making money off of the gullible.

Somerville said:

You have shown nothing more than a willingness to be led by the nose by people making money off of the gullible.

Click to expand...

Howso?

It seems to me that all of the cap&trade and government money gravy train is mostly on one side. The global warming nutjob side.

I'm not letting them lead me anywhere. I am arguing against them.

Somerville said:

Your C3 chart is a joke - not a single reference supplied for any of the 50 claims, just bald assertion of validity without support.

Click to expand...

Prove it ? What has it gotten wrong then ?

As "today's relatively modest heating" does not fit the causes known for any of the earlier periods when the earth was as warm or warmer,

Click to expand...

And what makes you think we have the vaguest idea what caused the 20 odd earlier heating phases of this post glaciation era ?

and the far more detailed observational data currently available does supply objective causes for our present warming trend, and as I stated earlier those factors known to have contributed to warming in the distant past are presently at minimum levels - yeah, I think your continuing defence of the indefensible does cause questions as to motivation.

Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense we know nothing of the sort.

The deniers tactics bear great resemblance to such methods used in the past to deny reality: the pro-tobacco lobby from the 1950s thru the 1980s and the on-going anti-evolution science of various religiously-motivated groups.

Click to expand...

This is in no way analagous to the tobacco lobby much as you would like to smear it as such :roll:

flogger said:

Somerville said:

Your C3 chart is a joke - not a single reference supplied for any of the 50 claims, just bald assertion of validity without support.

Click to expand...

Prove it ? What has it gotten wrong then ?
Bizarre response. The C3 chart has not a single reference or link - YES or NO?

As "today's relatively modest heating" does not fit the causes known for any of the earlier periods when the earth was as warm or warmer

Click to expand...

And what makes you think we have the vaguest idea what caused the 20 odd earlier heating phases of this post glaciation era ?
Oh maybe the hundreds of papers that have studied and analysed the periods in question but seriously - "20 odd ... heating phases ... post glaciation"?? Which Ice Age are you referring to? There is more than one, you know

and the far more detailed observational data currently available does supply objective causes for our present warming trend, and as I stated earlier those factors known to have contributed to warming in the distant past are presently at minimum levels - yeah, I think your continuing defence of the indefensible does cause questions as to motivation.

Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense we know nothing of the sort.
If we "know nothing of the sort" then why do you constantly reference those studies you seem to think support your position?

Somerville said:

The deniers tactics bear great resemblance to such methods used in the past to deny reality: the pro-tobacco lobby from the 1950s thru the 1980s and the on-going anti-evolution science of various religiously-motivated groups.

Click to expand...

This is in no way analagous to the tobacco lobby much as you would like to smear it as such :roll:

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, there's not a single penny coming from fossil fuel corporations and conservative think tanks supporting those who deny the reality of AGW. :roll: :roll:

Bizarre response. The C3 chart has not a single reference or link - YES or NO?

Click to expand...

Is it wrong yes or no ? Lets just choose one factor it lists at random. Clouds . Please show our ability to model clouds accurately ?

Oh maybe the hundreds of papers that have studied and analysed the periods in question but seriously - "20 odd ... heating phases ... post glaciation"?? Which Ice Age are you referring to? There is more than one, you know

Click to expand...

So you'll have no problem citing one then ? Post glaciation referred to the last glaciation as well you knew

Somerville said:

Oh yeah, there's not a single penny coming from fossil fuel corporations and conservative think tanks supporting those who deny the reality of AGW. :roll: :roll:

Click to expand...

Tobacco companies fossil fuel companies ,conservative think tanks. Is smearing really all you've got left then because I wish you would make up your mind which smear you prefer and stick with it ? :lol:

Muhammed said:

Howso?

It seems to me that all of the cap&trade and government money gravy train is mostly on one side. The global warming nutjob side.

I'm not letting them lead me anywhere. I am arguing against them.

Click to expand...

Because you know nothing of the conservative origins of cap and trade, formally known as pollution credit trading, which was favored by industry, you assume................!


Big surprise there!

Catawba said:

Because you know nothing of the conservative origins of cap and trade

Click to expand...

BS!

Name one thing I don't know about Cap & trade.

Of course you can't because you are a liar.

flogger said:

This is just playing to the gallery now. My position is very clear to anyone who wants to understand it



So you are simply another congregation member. Thanks for finally making clear what your alleged 'confusion' was really all about :roll:

Click to expand...

Nope, not playing to anything . . . just making it clear you can't have it both ways. Also, if you really thought I was confused, then you having the beliefs you claim makes much more sense.

Muhammed said:

BS!

Name one thing I don't know about Cap & trade.

Of course you can't because you are a liar.

Click to expand...

Its too late. You've already exposed your ignorance of the origins of cap and trade.

Today's science is always right, just like the scientist of the 20's were in their day when they had people drinking water and eating food laced with radium.

Fisher said:

Today's science is always right, just like the scientist of the 20's were in their day when they had people drinking water and eating food laced with radium.

Click to expand...

I'll go with a world wide scientific consensus based on a hundred years of scientific research over anonymous political forum posters with unsubstantiated claims, but that's just me.............

Catawba said:

I'll go with a world wide scientific consensus based on a hundred years of scientific research over anonymous political forum posters with unsubstantiated claims, but that's just me.............

Click to expand...

And I'll go with what can be proven as fact and time will tell whos right :lol:

flogger said:

And I'll go with what can be proven as fact and time will tell whos right

Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL.....that's quite a delusion you got going there.....actually you obviously go with whatever nonsense your cult dumps into your brain......and BTW, scientific research has already determined that the Earth is rapidly warming beyond the bounds of natural variability due to mankind's carbon emissions so time has already told who's right about this.....denier cultists are just too brainwashed and deluded to comprehend the actual situation....

flogger said:

And I'll go with what can be proven as fact and time will tell whos right :lol:

Click to expand...

If you knew anything at all about science, you would know that scientific consensus is as close to proof in science as it ever gets.

“Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?”

"Someone sent me a terrific set of the “deniers rules for debate” from Mercurius. Let me introduce them by way of a February 2008 email exchange I had with a denier over the headline question (see here). The denier wrote:

I have been doing enormous amounts of research in this global warming (caused by man) theories and have concluded that there is not ONE shred of evidence to back it up. Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?

Hmm. Not one shred of evidence? “PROVE”-in all caps, too! I know this is mostly pointless, but still, it was the day after my daughter’s first birthday, and I was feeling in good spirits about humanity, so I replied:

This one is easy. Either you believe in science “” i.e. we went to the moon, you go to the doctor, you have IT equipment you rely on “” or you don’t. If you don’t, I can’t “prove” anything to anybody. If you do, then the IPCC reports “” which are nothing more than a literature review by the top scientists in the world, commissioned by and summarized for policymakers, signed off by every friggin’ govt in the world “” are as much proof as a human being could possibly want."

"Yes, well, the deniers, they believe in “science,” they just don’t believe in scientists or hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles or scientific “evidence,” which brings me to Mercurius’s list of things the deniers will accept as evidence:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along”¦

3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money."

"Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?"* | ThinkProgress