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

[Porker]

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

That's one way to put it...

I know it was an accident but you assigned pogo's statement to me, and that's just wrong in so many ways.

Fixed it. I don't know how that happened...but it did. Sorry about that and I agree with the above.

 

[S.J.]

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

That's one way to put it...

I know it was an accident but you assigned pogo's statement to me, and that's just wrong in so many ways.

Fixed it. I don't know how that happened...but it did. Sorry about that and I agree with the above.

Thanks, Porker. The last thing in the world I want is to be associated with ANYTHING that fuckwad says. No offense, pogo.

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

I am a published geologist with 20+ years of field experience. You?

 

[Pogo]

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

That's one way to put it...

I know it was an accident but you assigned pogo's statement to me, and that's just wrong in so many ways.

Fixed it. I don't know how that happened...but it did. Sorry about that and I agree with the above.

Thanks, Porker. The last thing in the world I want is to be associated with ANYTHING that fuckwad says. No offense, pogo.

That's as it should be, since you'd find a way to twist it into "demographics are racist" or "George Bush shot JFK" or some such claptrap.

 

[Pogo]

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

That's one way to put it...

Indeed it is. That's the whole point -- that there might be another way.

For instance you could say "climate change is bullshit because George Bush shot JFK on Fox News, and that's racist".
Wouldn't make much sense but that doesn't stop some of us.

Or you could bust a mental nut to actually make a cogent rational argument. There's another way.

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.

TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking? Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out? That's not science and what they present is not science. SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!

It is not a demonization to call a denier a denier. It is a statement of fact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

I am a published geologist with 20+ years of field experience. You?

PREDFAN?

He's a rightwing partisan hack, conservative ideologue, and demagogue.

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

 

[bripat9643]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.

TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking? Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out? That's not science and what they present is not science. SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!

It is not a demonization to call a denier a denier. It is a statement of fact.

It's demonization. Do we call people who don't believe bigfoot exists "deniers?"

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.

TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking? Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out? That's not science and what they present is not science. SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!

It is not a demonization to call a denier a denier. It is a statement of fact.

It's demonization. Do we call people who don't believe bigfoot exists "deniers?"

Non-sequitur. Big foot doesn't exist. Global warming demonstrably does exist.

 

[bripat9643]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

 

[bripat9643]

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.

TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking? Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out? That's not science and what they present is not science. SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!

It is not a demonization to call a denier a denier. It is a statement of fact.

It's demonization. Do we call people who don't believe bigfoot exists "deniers?"

Non-sequitur. Big foot doesn't exist. Global warming demonstrably does exist.

ROFL! In other words, the only difference between a "denier" and a legitimate sceptic is whether you believe the proposition in question is true or not. I'll bet you even believe that's a sound argument. During the Middle Ages they used similar logic to justify burning heretics at the stake.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Use of the word "denier" is a dead giveaway that the user is a member of a cult with no real interest in science or the scientific method. Real scientists are skeptics and constantly seek ways to demonstrate a theory is false or fails to fully explain a phenomenon. Cult members would call a scientist a "denier" for daring to question the cult beliefs.

100 years after relativity it could still fail as a theory -- but not the cult worship known as manmade global climate change

That's the difference between science and cult

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help. The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.

 

[bripat9643]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help. The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.

In your view, they "taint" themselves only by expressing skepticism of your AGW dogma. They are heretics, in every sense of the word. Therefor you condemn them.

 

[orogenicman]

The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!

I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help. The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.

In your view, they "taint" themselves only by expressing skepticism of your AGW dogma. They are heretics, in every sense of the word. Therefor you condemn them.

Not at all. You people like to think of yourselves as skeptics. You are not. You are right wing political hacks walking in lock step with your petrochemical minders. Ergo, you are a denier. Congratulations.

 

[Freewill]

I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help. The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.

In your view, they "taint" themselves only by expressing skepticism of your AGW dogma. They are heretics, in every sense of the word. Therefor you condemn them.

Not at all. You people like to think of yourselves as skeptics. You are not. You are right wing political hacks walking in lock step with your petrochemical minders. Ergo, you are a denier. Congratulations.

And why do you think anyone posting on this board gives a crap about the oil companies? The reverse could be said, the GW fear mongers are democrat communist hacks wishing to ride GW to a dictatorship.

 

[orogenicman]

Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist. The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical. The analogy is appropriate.

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help. The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.

In your view, they "taint" themselves only by expressing skepticism of your AGW dogma. They are heretics, in every sense of the word. Therefor you condemn them.

Not at all. You people like to think of yourselves as skeptics. You are not. You are right wing political hacks walking in lock step with your petrochemical minders. Ergo, you are a denier. Congratulations.

And why do you think anyone posting on this board gives a crap about the oil companies? The reverse could be said, the GW fear mongers are democrat communist hacks wishing to ride GW to a dictatorship.

Right. That explains the Republicans who accept that AGW is real. Oh wait...

The fact that you believe it is a right versus left issue is all the evidence I need to demonstrate that it isn't and never really was about the science.

 

[Freewill]

What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed? And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism. Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?

No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help. The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.

In your view, they "taint" themselves only by expressing skepticism of your AGW dogma. They are heretics, in every sense of the word. Therefor you condemn them.

Not at all. You people like to think of yourselves as skeptics. You are not. You are right wing political hacks walking in lock step with your petrochemical minders. Ergo, you are a denier. Congratulations.

And why do you think anyone posting on this board gives a crap about the oil companies? The reverse could be said, the GW fear mongers are democrat communist hacks wishing to ride GW to a dictatorship.

Right. That explains the Republicans who accept that AGW is real. Oh wait...

The fact that you believe it is a right versus left issue is all the evidence I need to demonstrate that it isn't and never really was about the science.

You are right, it isn't about science it is about politics, glad we can agree. I could use a little more warmth, cold, not so much.

 

[JoeMoma]

What I want to know is what happen to those predictions about how warm the climate is suppose to be today that were made 15 or so years ago based on the global warming models?

Yes the climate is changing; it always has! That being said, the sky isn't falling!