Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[kaz]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

You're asking for something that's physically impossible

 

[orogenicman]

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

 

[kaz]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

You're asking for something that's physically impossible

It's a good thing he didn't go into a real science

 

[orogenicman]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

 

[bripat9643]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.

 

[orogenicman]

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

 

[orogenicman]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.

The AGU is beholden to government? They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans. That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?

 

[bripat9643]

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

Wrong. Geology gives you a record of the climate. It doesn't give you the cause of the climate.

 

[bripat9643]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.

The AGU is beholden to government? They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans. That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?

Government in general. All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us). Scientists are beholden to government bureaucrats ( permanent government employees), not politicians who come and go.

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

Wrong. Geology gives you a record of the climate. It doesn't give you the cause of the climate.

You don't know what you are talking about, which is par for you. It can give you both.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

Wrong. Geology gives you a record of the climate. It doesn't give you the cause of the climate.

You don't know what you are talking about, which is par for you. It can give you both.

How does geology tell you the cause of the climate?

 

[orogenicman]

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.

The AGU is beholden to government? They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans. That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?

Government in general. All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us). Scientists are beholden to government bureaucrats ( permanent government employees), not politicians who come and go.

Which has nothing to do with the AGU, which is NOT a government agency and doesn't rely on the government for anything. I'm a geologist, and as a professional, have never relied on the government for anything. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[orogenicman]

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

Wrong. Geology gives you a record of the climate. It doesn't give you the cause of the climate.

You don't know what you are talking about, which is par for you. It can give you both.

How does geology tell you the cause of the climate?

So we don't end up splitting hairs as Kaz and I did earlier, define "the cause of climate". Be specific.

 

[bripat9643]

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.

The AGU is beholden to government? They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans. That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?

Government in general. All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us). Scientists are beholden to government bureaucrats ( permanent government employees), not politicians who come and go.

Which has nothing to do with the AGU, which is NOT a government agency and doesn't rely on the government for anything. I'm a geologist, and as a professional, have never relied on the government for anything. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

A lot of geologists work for the government or get project funding from the government. I never claimed AGU was a government agency. I said the leadership was composed mostly of toadies who lick bureaucrat butthole. They aren't about to anger the bureaucrats who employ their members or supply them with funding.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

Wrong. Geology gives you a record of the climate. It doesn't give you the cause of the climate.

You don't know what you are talking about, which is par for you. It can give you both.

How does geology tell you the cause of the climate?

So we don't end up splitting hairs as Kaz and I did earlier, define "the cause of climate". Be specific.

In other words, you can't explain how geology can determine the cause of climate.

 

[kaz]

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

The scientific difference between fact and theory is "splitting hairs?" DId you mention that in your paper? You insisted they said it was “fact.” Scientiststs. That difference is not splitting hairs, it is huge. Just man up and admit you were wrong. They believe the theory, they don’t state it is fact.

“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space. One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn. One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.

Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something. Or not. It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.

 

[kaz]

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.

Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.

Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.

And this is what makes me keep wondering about your claim to have written the paper you claim to have written.

How does data about climate we know was not effected by man even if you have thousands or millions of years of data prove man affected climate when you have a few decades of data on climate that was potentially affected by man? No matter how far you go with knowingly non-affected climate, that doesn’t expand the data you are trying to determine if it was affected by man.

You have to grasp the question if you are what you claim

 

[kaz]

So no, you're not going to man up, got it

So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.

You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.

The AGU is beholden to government? They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans. That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?

Government in general. All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us). Scientists are beholden to government bureaucrats ( permanent government employees), not politicians who come and go.

Which has nothing to do with the AGU, which is NOT a government agency and doesn't rely on the government for anything. I'm a geologist, and as a professional, have never relied on the government for anything. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Um...he wasn't talking about you, he was talking about the people you cited. I mean duh