Getting the facts on denial

[S.J.]

Well, since every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University seems to be 'Taken in' by the evidence for AGW, looks like I am in good company. By the way, I have been taking classes in science and math now at the local University for 2 years now, part time basis as I also work full time, and I have yet to meet any professor in the sciences that states that AGW is not real.

I'm sure you haven't. And I'm sure you haven't met any who didn't enthusiastically endorse Obama for president twice as well. In fact, you probably haven't met any who don't sign onto every left wing position taken over the last 50 years. What's your point?

 

[SSDD]

Yet the majority of papers suggested warming was most likely. It was not the prevailing science, as has been demonstrated.

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate. The CIA paper was not written because one science department said that it was going to get cold...That CIA paper was written because cooling represented the majority consensus of the time.

Your argument might hold some water if that CIA paper didn't exist...but it does...and it accurately reflects the consensus opinion of the day. Sorry..denial won't change the facts.

 

[SSDD]

Oh boy, 6 or 7 left wing whacko global warming propaganda site links! I can hardly wait to delve into all those interesting and balanced discussions.

What happened to "global cooling"? I got some really pissed off Polar bears here in Arizona.

There never was any scientific consensus on 'global cooling'. In fact, only people of low intellect, like you were, were taken in by it.

Sure there was...denial won't change that fact. The CIA wasn't in the business of getting worked up over the minority scientific opinion of the day...and hansen?....really.

 

[SSDD]

Well, since every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University seems to be 'Taken in' by the evidence for AGW, looks like I am in good company. By the way, I have been taking classes in science and math now at the local University for 2 years now, part time basis as I also work full time, and I have yet to meet any professor in the sciences that states that AGW is not real.

It is truly sad rocks that you aren't bright enough to recognize the difference between the body of a scientific society and the political head of a scientific academy....there is a reason that the heads of scientific academies don't ask the body of the membership to help them out with their political statements.

 

[DarkFury]

Yet the majority of papers suggested warming was most likely. It was not the prevailing science, as has been demonstrated.

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate. The CIA paper was not written because one science department said that it was going to get cold...That CIA paper was written because cooling represented the majority consensus of the time.

Your argument might hold some water if that CIA paper didn't exist...but it does...and it accurately reflects the consensus opinion of the day. Sorry..denial won't change the facts.

Some truly solid points. Government control via DIS-information. A long standing program at that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet the majority of papers suggested warming was most likely. It was not the prevailing science, as has been demonstrated.

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate. The CIA paper was not written because one science department said that it was going to get cold...That CIA paper was written because cooling represented the majority consensus of the time.

Your argument might hold some water if that CIA paper didn't exist...but it does...and it accurately reflects the consensus opinion of the day. Sorry..denial won't change the facts.

Links to scientific sources, please. Obese junkies and fake British Lords are not scientific sources.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, since every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University seems to be 'Taken in' by the evidence for AGW, looks like I am in good company. By the way, I have been taking classes in science and math now at the local University for 2 years now, part time basis as I also work full time, and I have yet to meet any professor in the sciences that states that AGW is not real.

It is truly sad rocks that you aren't bright enough to recognize the difference between the body of a scientific society and the political head of a scientific academy....there is a reason that the heads of scientific academies don't ask the body of the membership to help them out with their political statements.

Now that is a silly statement. You see, one scientific society has changed it's position because of membership pressure. That is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The policy statement totally denied AGW. A great many of the members stated that unless that policy statement was changed, they were going to cancel their membership. It was changed.

 

[SSDD]

Yet the majority of papers suggested warming was most likely. It was not the prevailing science, as has been demonstrated.

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate. The CIA paper was not written because one science department said that it was going to get cold...That CIA paper was written because cooling represented the majority consensus of the time.

Your argument might hold some water if that CIA paper didn't exist...but it does...and it accurately reflects the consensus opinion of the day. Sorry..denial won't change the facts.

Links to scientific sources, please. Obese junkies and fake British Lords are not scientific sources.

Are you claiming that the CIA did not have access to the prevailing scientific opinion at the time when they wrote the paper regarding the coming cooling? Is that what you are denying now?

 

[SSDD]

Now that is a silly statement. You see, one scientific society has changed it's position because of membership pressure. That is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The policy statement totally denied AGW. A great many of the members stated that unless that policy statement was changed, they were going to cancel their membership. It was changed.

So you are lying when you say every scientific academy is on board with the AGW hoax?...Not surprising...your type are natural born liars...and you see what happens when actual scientists who work for a living as opposed to political heads of organizations get their voice heard....the fact is rocks that only the smallest minority of scientists believe in AGW...those being the ones in political positions as opposed to actually doing science for a living.

 

[cnm]

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate.

The data shows that is not the case. 10% of papers predicted cooling. That is a minority view.

 

[cnm]

Are you claiming that the CIA did not have access to the prevailing scientific opinion at the time when they wrote the paper regarding the coming cooling? Is that what you are denying now?

A minority view is a minority view no matter whom it is written by.

 

[SSDD]

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate.

The data shows that is not the case. 10% of papers predicted cooling. That is a minority view.

10% of the titles you can find on the internet? Ho hum....the fact is that there was a cooling scare and the scare was serious enough to be taken seriously by the CIA....denying the fact won't alter the fact no matter how much you wish it were so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet the majority of papers suggested warming was most likely. It was not the prevailing science, as has been demonstrated.

No they didn't...The fact is that the prevailing wisdom was that it was going to get cold and hunger was going to be the primary problem resulting from the change in climate. The CIA paper was not written because one science department said that it was going to get cold...That CIA paper was written because cooling represented the majority consensus of the time.

Your argument might hold some water if that CIA paper didn't exist...but it does...and it accurately reflects the consensus opinion of the day. Sorry..denial won't change the facts.

Some truly solid points. Government control via DIS-information. A long standing program at that.[/QUOTE

Mr. DarkFury, oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.................................

A very long standing disconnect with reality for our 'Conservatives'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that is a silly statement. You see, one scientific society has changed it's position because of membership pressure. That is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The policy statement totally denied AGW. A great many of the members stated that unless that policy statement was changed, they were going to cancel their membership. It was changed.

So you are lying when you say every scientific academy is on board with the AGW hoax?...Not surprising...your type are natural born liars...and you see what happens when actual scientists who work for a living as opposed to political heads of organizations get their voice heard....the fact is rocks that only the smallest minority of scientists believe in AGW...those being the ones in political positions as opposed to actually doing science for a living.

Mr. SSDD, perhaps you should re-read the statement. The AAPG ceased to deny that AGW was real after a large number of it's members threatened to drop membership if they continued that policy of denial.

 

[cnm]

10% of the titles you can find on the internet? Ho hum....the fact is that there was a cooling scare and the scare was serious enough to be taken seriously by the CIA....denying the fact won't alter the fact no matter how much you wish it were so.

10% of the scientific papers surveyed in the research that has been posted many times. It was a minority view that only dupes took seriously.

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Science AMAScience AMA Series: I am John Cook, Climate Change Denial researcher, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, and creator of SkepticalScience.com. Ask Me Anything! (self.science)

submitted 1 month ago * by Skeptical_John_CookJohn Cook, Skeptical Science

Hi r/science, I study Climate Change Science and the psychology surrounding it. I co-authored the college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. I've published papers on scientific consensus, misinformation, agnotology-based learning and the psychology of climate change. I'm currently completing a doctorate in cognitive psychology, researching the psychology of consensus and the efficacy of inoculation against misinformation.

I co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. I also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, I won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

I am currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. I'm also teaching a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, which started last week.

I'll be back at 5pm EDT (2 pm PDT, 11 pm UTC) to answer your questions, Ask Me Anything!

Edit: I'm now online answering questions. (Proof)

Edit 2 (7PM ET): Have to stop for now, but will come back in a few hours and answer more questions.

Edit 3 (~5AM): Thank you for a great discussion! Hope to see you in class.
Science AMA Series I am John Cook Climate Change Denial researcher Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland and creator of SkepticalScience.com. Ask Me Anything science

Very interesting discussion here.

John COOK? Really?? this liar....

Cook is a lying manipulating piece of crap.. SKS??? Really???

A liar, on a left wing hack blog that is known for half truths and outright deceptions..

John Cook wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face. Yet you believe him as if he were a god. Denier is a derogatory term and is used by the left to stifle discussion and keep real science from being seen or heard.. Using John Cook as your guiding light is total lunacy!

 

[Billy_Bob]

10% of the titles you can find on the internet? Ho hum....the fact is that there was a cooling scare and the scare was serious enough to be taken seriously by the CIA....denying the fact won't alter the fact no matter how much you wish it were so.

10% of the scientific papers surveyed in the research that has been posted many times. It was a minority view that only dupes took seriously.

Source

Of 11946 papers Cook threw out all but 74... and then misrepresented them... the only ones duped here are alarmists and their droning on about something that doesn't exist...

 

[cnm]

The research is from Peterson et al and you present nothing to contradict it but ignorance of the topic and empty denial.

 

[flacaltenn]

"""Hi (I'm John Cook), I study Climate Change Science and the psychology surrounding it."""

That pegs him as a propaganda specialist pretty much --- doesn't it??
When he's not out fabricating outrageous phoney polls of 97% consensus..

/Unsubscribe

 

[skookerasbil]

10% of the titles you can find on the internet? Ho hum....the fact is that there was a cooling scare and the scare was serious enough to be taken seriously by the CIA....denying the fact won't alter the fact no matter how much you wish it were so.

10% of the scientific papers surveyed in the research that has been posted many times. It was a minority view that only dupes took seriously.

Source

You're not getting it s0n!!

There are minority views on everything. The only thing that matters is, how it is affecting your life. With global warming, the science is mattering for dick. Not outside the internet anyway. In the real world, the "minority" view is winning.........huge. Not even debatable. The 97% "consensus"? Like a kid holding up a fake Stanley Cup in a dek hockey league!! Nobody cares.

We've been hearing about the "majority" view of the AGW alarmists for years in here. Then, just as now, nothing but internet banter. Take a bow.....by all means.



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040_1.png.html][/URL]





[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]