• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

Tim the plumber said:

To explain this to you who has obviously never encountered the idea of science before;

If you make the claim that Saturn has rings then you would have made a cliam that can be falsified by somebody doing the experiment of looking at it with a telescope.

The experiment of looking at Saturn can be repeated. You will get the same result unless the conditions exist where the rings are exactly edge on when you will not see them from earth.

The claim that the universe is expanding can be tested for in teh same sort of way. That test can be repeated. Other tests which would determine if it was true can be done in different ways and if they give the same answer then you can have a very high confidence in the claim.

So when there is a claim that Greenland is losing ice mass from one method which is uncheckable and the basic simple method which is very easy to check tells you the exact opposite why do you hold onto the claim that is shown to be false?
Click to expand...

If I tell you that all matter it’s not really solid but has wavelike properties, you would look at it and it would be bleedingly obvious that is incorrect. So would you be justified in dismissing that claim? Or would that mean that you just have to take a course in it and see why that might be the case that the experts are saying that?
 
Threegoofs said:
Weird that my employers- who are mostly scientists- would disagree.

But hey- you know more than all the experts on subjects that you never actually trained on, so you’re obviously a genius level plumber.
Click to expand...

Just as it would be obvious that I know almost nothing about sport in general it is utterly obnvious that you know nothing about science or indeed anything that happens in a degree course.

Perhaps your employers don't talk about scientific details to the janitor.
 
ataraxia said:
If I tell you that all matter it’s not really solid but has wavelike properties, you would look at it and it would be bleedingly obvious that is incorrect. So would you be justified in dismissing that claim? Or would that mean that you just have to take a course in it and see why that might be the case that the experts are saying that?
Click to expand...

It would mean you havbe no clue about it.

Solid does not mean that all the nucleuses (nucleii?) of all the atoms are in direct contact, that in neutron star material. Solid is defined as the atoms are held in a rigid or somwhat rigid lattice which does not lose it's shape to some degree when external forces change.

That all things can be represented as waveforms or thought of in that way as well was particles is fairly basic stuff. Wave particle duality is just how it is. Just because it does not make much sense to us does not change the real world.

In fact your whole question is yet more evidence that you have no clue at all.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How do you know? As far as I can see it does not actually say what amount of precipitation falls on the place nor the amount of outflow. Quote it to show I am wrong.
Click to expand...

What does it say tim?
 
longview said:
Tim is saying the YOU personally have to think for yourself, and that blindly accepting what others even leading say scientists is religion not science!
Click to expand...

Do you for example know the entire processes from plant to plate for all the food you eat? Else you are "blindly accepting what others think" as you put it then it comes to that the food you eat are safe.

That we live in a extremely complex world there you need to trust experts. While at the same time you of course shouldn't do it blindly trust experts that it always good with a critical mind but you have given no reason for why the world's leading scientists shouldn't be trusted. That the only reason you are given is that your interpretation of the evidence is different from the world's leading scientist' interpretation.
 
vegas giants said:
What does it say tim?
Click to expand...

Try reading it. I have and I think it does not actaully say anything of any substance. That it is a load of waffle with no real substantive information.

However, you will be utterly unable to form any opinion because you are far too lazy to read it.
 
vegas giants said:
What does it say tim?
Click to expand...

Try reading it. I have and I think it does not actaully say anything of any substance. That it is a load of waffle with no real substantive information.

However, you will be utterly unable to form any opinion because you are far too lazy to read it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Try reading it. I have and I think it does not actaully say anything of any substance. That it is a load of waffle with no real substantive information.

However, you will be utterly unable to form any opinion because you are far too lazy to read it.
Click to expand...

So you didnt read it? If I can show you it states greenland is losing ice mass then you admit you never read it...ok?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Try reading it. I have and I think it does not actaully say anything of any substance. That it is a load of waffle with no real substantive information.

However, you will be utterly unable to form any opinion because you are far too lazy to read it.
Click to expand...

So you didnt read it? If I can show you it states greenland is losing ice mass then you admit you never read it...ok?
 
vegas giants said:
So you didnt read it? If I can show you it states greenland is losing ice mass then you admit you never read it...ok?
Click to expand...

I will admit you have read it better than I did. I could not spot anywhere where is says what the total precipitation was nor the outflow nor the net change in Gt.
 
ataraxia said:
You were telling us that science cannot study anything where we cannot keep repeating experiments.

How can science make claims about the universe, things like expansion, dark matter or energy, etc...or make predictions about its eventual fate, when there is only one universe?
Click to expand...
As I thought, off topic deflection!
No, Science can and should keep repeating experiments.
the AGW proponents should start with the experiments that verify that the predicted amplified feedbacks are real,
Oh, Wait, they never did those experiments the first time! The amplified feedbacks were simply assumptions slipped into models.
 
ataraxia said:
I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet,
Click to expand...

If you’re trying to win the hearts and minds or even have a reasonable discussion on a topic, I’d suggest not using insults and derogatory language in your very first sentence. This is the tone of an attack rather than a reasonable point of view. You also misspoke on your second sentence when you said there’s unanimous consensus from every scientific organization on the entire planet. There’s no need for hyperbole, but again you’re setting this up as a bias attack with this language rather than an actual discussion. Before we continue though, what is this consensus agreed upon by every scientific organization? Please clearly share this consensus. I’ll wait.
 
ataraxia said:
Science is not a democracy. I cannot begin to say how disturbing it is thinking people with no formal education or experience in a subject think their opinion is just as good as those with years of education or experience.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
-Isaac Asimov
Click to expand...
The difference is that nothing I am saying, requires observations needing more than simple math and physics.
Again, one need not be an engineer to see tell than an amplifier is not performing as advertised.
For fun, lets look at how much extra warming, at a minimum we would have to have by now, if the 2XCO2 ECS were 4.5 C.
We have the .29C of pre 1950 warming as input,
and .64C of warming since 1950, with between -.1C and +.1C of unknown warming.
If ECS were 4.5C, the feedback factor would be 4.09,
so the input times the feedback factor, times Hansen's 60% of ECS.
.29 X 4.09 X .6=.638C of unknown warming, but we only have about .1C at most.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Do you for example know the entire processes from plant to plate for all the food you eat? Else you are "blindly accepting what others think" as you put it then it comes to that the food you eat are safe.

That we live in a extremely complex world there you need to trust experts. While at the same time you of course shouldn't do it blindly trust experts that it always good with a critical mind but you have given no reason for why the world's leading scientists shouldn't be trusted. That the only reason you are given is that your interpretation of the evidence is different from the world's leading scientist' interpretation.
Click to expand...
Actually we do not know the food we eat is safe, we hope they are being careful, and take our risks.
If I get sick at a restaurant, I do not go back! But it goes beyond that, We can still see, and smell, and taste the food,
and have evolved some fairly good senses for detecting when things are not good to eat.
I think "blindly accepting" does not apply to the food we eat.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It would mean you havbe no clue about it.

Solid does not mean that all the nucleuses (nucleii?) of all the atoms are in direct contact, that in neutron star material. Solid is defined as the atoms are held in a rigid or somwhat rigid lattice which does not lose it's shape to some degree when external forces change.

That all things can be represented as waveforms or thought of in that way as well was particles is fairly basic stuff. Wave particle duality is just how it is. Just because it does not make much sense to us does not change the real world.

In fact your whole question is yet more evidence that you have no clue at all.
Click to expand...

Your pointing to satellite photos of ice or river flow patterns in Greenland, or whatever else it is that’s impressing you, as evidence that should make it “bleedingly obvious” to anyone who looks at it that there is no icemelt or climate change, and you don’t need any special training or you can just listen to some guy on an Internet chat site who says they took some physics classes and sounds all “sciency”, is no different. I know you don’t see it when you look. It must seem like they are making stuff up, maybe to make money or just put you on or something. But it is “just how it is”, as you say.
 
longview said:
Actually we do not know the food we eat is safe, we hope they are being careful, and take our risks.
If I get sick at a restaurant, I do not go back! But it goes beyond that, We can still see, and smell, and taste the food,
and have evolved some fairly good senses for detecting when things are not good to eat.
I think "blindly accepting" does not apply to the food we eat.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people who refuse to blindly accept to get on an airplane. They don’t understand how anyone can put all that heavy metal up in the air. They just don’t trust those scientists! It makes life very difficult for themselves and their family, and hurt even sometimes hurts their work.

There are people who refuse to blindly accept modern medical science too. If they have cancer, they would rather die than go through all the nonsense all those doctors are going to put them through. They’re pretty sure all those doctors are in it for the money anyway. It makes life very miserable for themselves and their family and friends as well.
 
longview said:
The difference is that nothing I am saying, requires observations needing more than simple math and physics.
Click to expand...

I know. And that may be the problem. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
 
supremeLaw said:
If you’re trying to win the hearts and minds or even have a reasonable discussion on a topic, I’d suggest not using insults and derogatory language in your very first sentence. This is the tone of an attack rather than a reasonable point of view. You also misspoke on your second sentence when you said there’s unanimous consensus from every scientific organization on the entire planet. There’s no need for hyperbole, but again you’re setting this up as a bias attack with this language rather than an actual discussion. Before we continue though, what is this consensus agreed upon by every scientific organization? Please clearly share this consensus. I’ll wait.
Click to expand...

The consensus is that no formal scientific organization anywhere which claims climate change is not happening, or that we should blow it off as no big deal.

If there is one, let me know. I’ll wait.

If you think there is one,
 
longview said:
As I thought, off topic deflection!
No, Science can and should keep repeating experiments.
the AGW proponents should start with the experiments that verify that the predicted amplified feedbacks are real,
Oh, Wait, they never did those experiments the first time! The amplified feedbacks were simply assumptions slipped into models.
Click to expand...

So there you go. I think your argument is polished enough already. It seems simple enough. What more do you want to polish? Go explain that to the experts and see what they have to say about it. Submit a paper to a formal scientific journal. Not sure what’s holding you up at this point.
 
ataraxia said:
I know a lot of people who refuse to blindly accept to get on an airplane. They don’t understand how anyone can put all that heavy metal up in the air. They just don’t trust those scientists! It makes life very difficult for themselves and their family, and hurt even sometimes hurts their work.

There are people who refuse to blindly accept modern medical science too. If they have cancer, they would rather die than go through all the nonsense all those doctors are going to put them through. They’re pretty sure all those doctors are in it for the money anyway. It makes life very miserable for themselves and their family and friends as well.
Click to expand...
Yet you are using the phrase "blindly accept" out of contest, because there is nothing blindly about it.
The people who do not like to fly, can see that millions safely use air travel every year.
As to medical science, People see it work every day.
 
supremeLaw said:
If you’re trying to win the hearts and minds...
Click to expand...

At this point, I am realizing that winning the hearts and minds of climate deniers is even harder than trying to get a five-year-old to like broccoli.
 
longview said:
Yet you are using the phrase "blindly accept" out of contest, because there is nothing blindly about it.
The people who do not like to fly, can see that millions safely use air travel every year.
As to medical science, People see it work every day.
Click to expand...

The warning statements on climate change come from every single scientific organization on the entire planet. You don’t see that the things they say work every day? Or do you understand every single aspect of everything they say and the things to use? Why is it this particular issue I wish all the sudden you’re a big skeptic?
 
ataraxia said:
At this point, I am realizing that winning the hearts and minds of climate deniers is even harder than trying to get a five-year-old to like broccoli.
Click to expand...

Climate is very long range. And climate has always been long range. So over the short periods, which is weather, how can you allege we deny climate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom