Denial of truth

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,358
Reaction score
7,235
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Climate Change: The Next Generation: John Cook, The Guardian: How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough – namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members. This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make sense of it all?
At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It's based on many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single, consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a consensus among scientists. It's not about tree-hugging or secret plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements and the laws of physics.
Patterns in the sceptic arguments began to emerge. Instead of considering all the evidence in their search for the truth, climate 'sceptics' refuse to accept evidence that humans are causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny the scientific evidence.

Si Modo, are you listening?
 

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
5,422
Points
270
Global Warming is the new Snake Oil. Why are you warmists so proud of being scammed?
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Here's an idea, quit blaming the United States. Go to freaking China and tell them they are poluting the environment and leave the US alone for a couple of years to fix the economy.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Climate Change: The Next Generation: John Cook, The Guardian: How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough – namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members. This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make sense of it all?
At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It's based on many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single, consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a consensus among scientists. It's not about tree-hugging or secret plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements and the laws of physics.
Patterns in the sceptic arguments began to emerge. Instead of considering all the evidence in their search for the truth, climate 'sceptics' refuse to accept evidence that humans are causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny the scientific evidence.

Si Modo, are you listening?
Of course I am listening.

I always pay attention to those who politicize science and soil it.

I always pay attention to journalists who think they know what science is. It makes me laugh, at least as much as dilettantes.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,761
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
We all want cleaner air.
It's how we do it.
Right now the alternatives are too costly.
We need to drill here for oil,gas and coal until technology finds just as cheep clean fuel as what we are using now.
The technology of the future won't come about for another 15 years or so. Till then we need to open up our market's of oil, gas and coal.
The Environmentalist don't seem to think that drilling can and has been proven that the two can coexist.
The Enviro's are being unreasonable.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
4,523
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Global Warming is the new Snake Oil. Why are you warmists so proud of being scammed?
What makes you think you have the ability to scam us? We see right through you. The OP was dead-on in the portrayal of your agenda and how you basically use all the tricks that you accuse the "warmers" of using, i.e. massaged data and refusal to consider all the different aspects of climate. You claim that the "warmers" only consider CO2, when the truth is you're willing to blame everything BUT CO2, because to do so would trample your political agenda, the science be damned!!!
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Global Warming is the new Snake Oil. Why are you warmists so proud of being scammed?
What makes you think you have the ability to scam us? We see right through you. The OP was dead-on in the portrayal of your agenda and how you basically use all the tricks that you accuse the "warmers" of using, i.e. massaged data and refusal to consider all the different aspects of climate. You claim that the "warmers" only consider CO2, when the truth is you're willing to blame everything BUT CO2, because to do so would trample your political agenda, the science be damned!!!
Yeah, practicing scientific integrity is the tool of tricksters.




Idiot.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
67,460
Reaction score
29,868
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority.
IOW, he accepts the word of people who have been caught red-handed fudging the data, tweaking the computer models, willfully excluding contrary evidence, blackballing journals that dare to print the research of skeptics, including opinion pieces as "peer reviewed" data, and a host of other chicanery, as the "ultimate authority".

Nothing to see here.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
4,523
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Global Warming is the new Snake Oil. Why are you warmists so proud of being scammed?
What makes you think you have the ability to scam us? We see right through you. The OP was dead-on in the portrayal of your agenda and how you basically use all the tricks that you accuse the "warmers" of using, i.e. massaged data and refusal to consider all the different aspects of climate. You claim that the "warmers" only consider CO2, when the truth is you're willing to blame everything BUT CO2, because to do so would trample your political agenda, the science be damned!!!
Yeah, practicing scientific integrity is the tool of tricksters.

Idiot.
It's the deniers that are the tricksters. They'll ignore any data that doesn't fit their agenda and twist the meaning of what the AGW proponrents are saying to make them appear to be the cheaters. AGW data comes from all sorts of sources and point to the same thing. The deniers have only been successful at confusing the issues.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority.
IOW, he accepts the word of people who have been caught red-handed fudging the data, tweaking the computer models, willfully excluding contrary evidence, blackballing journals that dare to print the research of skeptics, including opinion pieces as "peer reviewed" data, and a host of other chicanery, as the "ultimate authority".

Nothing to see here.
That is exactly the problem. His explanation only holds water if you first accept his premise that something that is 'peer reviewed' is the final say. You are basically accepting the notion that whatever something 'peer reviewed' says must be correct. That is a premise that simply can't be accepted on faith anymore.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
What makes you think you have the ability to scam us? We see right through you. The OP was dead-on in the portrayal of your agenda and how you basically use all the tricks that you accuse the "warmers" of using, i.e. massaged data and refusal to consider all the different aspects of climate. You claim that the "warmers" only consider CO2, when the truth is you're willing to blame everything BUT CO2, because to do so would trample your political agenda, the science be damned!!!
Yeah, practicing scientific integrity is the tool of tricksters.

Idiot.
It's the deniers that are the tricksters. They'll ignore any data that doesn't fit their agenda and twist the meaning of what the AGW proponrents are saying to make them appear to be the cheaters. AGW data comes from all sorts of sources and point to the same thing. The deniers have only been successful at confusing the issues.
First of all, what is a denier denying?

Secondly, what data has an alleged 'denier' twisted the meaning of? Data is data. Manipulated data is twisted, and the only ones who have manipulated date are APW proponents.

What do you mean by data pointing to something? Conclusions? What conclusions do you think have been made by scientists in peer-reviewed scientific publications?
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,358
Reaction score
7,235
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Ah, of course. Peer review should not be the final say. Fat drugged out radio jocks should be. Isn't that just so logical?
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Ah, of course. Peer review should not be the final say. Fat drugged out radio jocks should be. Isn't that just so logical?
That's exactly what you do.

You soil science.

And you continue to do it.

You never stop.

You refuse to learn a thing even about the basics of the logic of scientific discovery. Absolute refusal on your part.

You are an enemy of science.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,358
Reaction score
7,235
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Poor Si. Just as big a liar as Wirebender.

So Si, all the scientists are manipulating the data. Up there with blow torchs melting glaciers, continental ice caps, and sea ice. Down in Texas, drying out the whole state. In the Mid-West, dumping shiploads of water they brought up the Mississippi and Missouri to fool people into thinking the rivers were in flood all summer. Still would like to know how they created those F-5 tornados.

First, you deniers denied that the world was warming, right up until it bacame obvious to all. Then you deny the basic science, absorption bands of the gases involved. Finally, you denigrate the real scientists that are doing the real science.

Si, if you really are in a scientific field, you are a sick and demented puppy. Denial of science becasuse it does not fit your political agenda, in a scientist, is worse than the whoring of Lindzen and Singer.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Poor Si. Just as big a liar as Wirebender.

So Si, all the scientists are manipulating the data. Up there with blow torchs melting glaciers, continental ice caps, and sea ice. Down in Texas, drying out the whole state. In the Mid-West, dumping shiploads of water they brought up the Mississippi and Missouri to fool people into thinking the rivers were in flood all summer. Still would like to know how they created those F-5 tornados.

First, you deniers denied that the world was warming, right up until it bacame obvious to all. Then you deny the basic science, absorption bands of the gases involved. Finally, you denigrate the real scientists that are doing the real science.

Si, if you really are in a scientific field, you are a sick and demented puppy. Denial of science becasuse it does not fit your political agenda, in a scientist, is worse than the whoring of Lindzen and Singer.
1. Where did I say all scientists manipulated data?

Nowhere.

So, that simply isn't true.

2. I denied that there is warming?

Where?

You can prove it by finding a post of mine where I said that. (I won't hold my breath waiting, though.)

So, that simply isn't true.

3. I denied basic science?

Where?

You find a post of mine where I did and you will be right. You won't find one, because I never did, and never will.

So, that simply isn't true.

4. Where have I politicized science?

You find a post of mine where I have done that and you will be right. I know I have never done so and will never do so.

So, that simply isn't true.




So, because none of your premisses are factual, your conclusion is crap.




Let's see you post some more opinion pieces of journalists thinking you have made some kind of profound scientific point, exactly what you did in this thread and exactly what you accuse me of doing. Mental health professionals call that projection.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,358
Reaction score
7,235
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Yeah, practicing scientific integrity is the tool of tricksters.

Idiot.
It's the deniers that are the tricksters. They'll ignore any data that doesn't fit their agenda and twist the meaning of what the AGW proponrents are saying to make them appear to be the cheaters. AGW data comes from all sorts of sources and point to the same thing. The deniers have only been successful at confusing the issues.
First of all, what is a denier denying?

Secondly, what data has an alleged 'denier' twisted the meaning of? Data is data. Manipulated data is twisted, and the only ones who have manipulated date are APW proponents.

What do you mean by data pointing to something? Conclusions? What conclusions do you think have been made by scientists in peer-reviewed scientific publications?
The only people that have manipulated data are APW proponents. That is an outright lie.

OK, what conclusions have been made by the scientists in peer reviewed publications?


The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow the current trajectory, by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach two to four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of less than 2 °C to more than 5 °C compared to 1850. This range of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise along densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 10–20% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years.

Public Policy Aspects
Recent scientific investigations have strengthened the case for policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to unavoidable climate change. To strengthen the consensus for action, this statement from the Geological Society of America is intended to inform policymakers about improved knowledge of Earth’s climate system based on advances in climate science. Recent scientific investigations have contributed to this improved understanding of the climate system and supplied strong evidence for human-induced global warming, providing policy makers with a unique perspective on which to base mitigation and adaptation strategies. Carefully researched and tested adaptation strategies can both reduce and limit negative impacts and explore potential positive impacts. Future climate change will pose societal, biological, economic, and strategic challenges that will require a combination of national and international emissions reductions and adaptations. These challenges will also require balanced and thoughtful national and international discussions leading to careful long-term planning and sustained policy actions.

Recommendations
Public policy should include effective strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Cost-effective investments to improve the efficient use of Earth’s energy resources can reduce the economic impacts of future adaptation efforts. Strategies for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions should be evaluated based on their impacts on climate, on costs to global and national economies, and on positive and negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of humans and ecosystems.
Comprehensive local, state, national and international planning is needed to address challenges posed by future climate change. Near-, mid-, and long-term strategies for mitigation of, and adaptation to climate change should be developed, based in part on knowledge gained from studies of previous environmental changes.
Public investment is needed to improve our understanding of how climate change affects society, including on local and regional scales, and to formulate adaptation measures. Sustained support of climate-related research to advance understanding of the past and present operation of the climate system is needed, with particular focus on the major remaining uncertainties in understanding and predicting Earth’s future climate at regional and global scales. Research is needed to improve our ability to assess the response and resilience of natural and human systems to past, present, and future changes in the climate system.


How many policy statements of Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities would you like me to post? These are the people that publish the articles in the peer reviewed journals.

Si, your denigration of scientists is now approaching that of Walleyes and Bent.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
It's the deniers that are the tricksters. They'll ignore any data that doesn't fit their agenda and twist the meaning of what the AGW proponrents are saying to make them appear to be the cheaters. AGW data comes from all sorts of sources and point to the same thing. The deniers have only been successful at confusing the issues.
First of all, what is a denier denying?

Secondly, what data has an alleged 'denier' twisted the meaning of? Data is data. Manipulated data is twisted, and the only ones who have manipulated date are APW proponents.

What do you mean by data pointing to something? Conclusions? What conclusions do you think have been made by scientists in peer-reviewed scientific publications?
The only people that have manipulated data are APW proponents. That is an outright lie.

OK, what conclusions have been made by the scientists in peer reviewed publications?


The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow the current trajectory, by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach two to four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of less than 2 °C to more than 5 °C compared to 1850. This range of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise along densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 10–20% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years.

Public Policy Aspects
Recent scientific investigations have strengthened the case for policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to unavoidable climate change. To strengthen the consensus for action, this statement from the Geological Society of America is intended to inform policymakers about improved knowledge of Earth’s climate system based on advances in climate science. Recent scientific investigations have contributed to this improved understanding of the climate system and supplied strong evidence for human-induced global warming, providing policy makers with a unique perspective on which to base mitigation and adaptation strategies. Carefully researched and tested adaptation strategies can both reduce and limit negative impacts and explore potential positive impacts. Future climate change will pose societal, biological, economic, and strategic challenges that will require a combination of national and international emissions reductions and adaptations. These challenges will also require balanced and thoughtful national and international discussions leading to careful long-term planning and sustained policy actions.

Recommendations
Public policy should include effective strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Cost-effective investments to improve the efficient use of Earth’s energy resources can reduce the economic impacts of future adaptation efforts. Strategies for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions should be evaluated based on their impacts on climate, on costs to global and national economies, and on positive and negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of humans and ecosystems.
Comprehensive local, state, national and international planning is needed to address challenges posed by future climate change. Near-, mid-, and long-term strategies for mitigation of, and adaptation to climate change should be developed, based in part on knowledge gained from studies of previous environmental changes.
Public investment is needed to improve our understanding of how climate change affects society, including on local and regional scales, and to formulate adaptation measures. Sustained support of climate-related research to advance understanding of the past and present operation of the climate system is needed, with particular focus on the major remaining uncertainties in understanding and predicting Earth’s future climate at regional and global scales. Research is needed to improve our ability to assess the response and resilience of natural and human systems to past, present, and future changes in the climate system.


How many policy statements of Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities would you like me to post? These are the people that publish the articles in the peer reviewed journals.

Si, your denigration of scientists is now approaching that of Walleyes and Bent.
Lesson No. 1, Rocks: Opinions are not peer-reviewed science.

Lesson No. 2, Rocks: Opinion pieces about public policy are not peer-reviewed science.



As I said, you have an absolute refusal to understand even the most basic concepts of science.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
You dont care about Peer Reviewed.

If you did you would accpet mans effect on global warming.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top