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

[PredFan]

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?

I'm a medical professional and researcher with 32 years experience and 50 years of loving science and history. Care to address my post?

 

[PredFan]

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.

Who has proven you wrong every single time? Bitter much?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

LEFT WING LIBERAL IDEOLOGUE STRATEGY USED BY SAUL ALYNISKY. This should really come as no surprise..

 

[jc456]

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

And the public isn't supposed to know what the scientist do that's all supposed to just be for scientist, so screw the public. Yep the organicman just told me that.

 

[PredFan]

The title of this thread is very wrong. It isn't science denialism, it is man made climate change denialism.

If it was truly science fact, why the lies, corruption, fraud, coercion, intimidation, and dirty word-play like the thread title? Why not let the science speak for itself? Well the answer is that it is not science, it's politics.

 

[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.

Notice that you sidestepped my question about how you distinguish a legitimate skeptic from a "denier." That's because there is no way for you to distinguish them. AGW cult followers simply label anyone who questions your dogma to be a "denier" (heretic). You use exactly the same methods as the Spanish Inquisition. If the science genuinely settled as you claim, then you could rattle off a series of experiments and mathematical proofs that demonstrate the validity of the theory of AGW. You can't do that so you resort to ad hominem arguments and countless other sleazy rhetorical maneuvers to delude your audience. The fact that you refuse to engage in honest debate shows that you know your claims have big holes in them. Pretending they don't exist is not what someone who believes in science would do.

 

[boedicca]

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.

What you call Science Denialism is actually rational skepticism of the Liberal PC Orthodox Religion that the Progs try to shove down the throats of others against their will.

 

[rdean]

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.

Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.

antarctic sea ice increasing - Google Search

Scientists say Antarctic sea ice has grown because global warming has changed antarctic winds and the ocean heating up has created record precipitation as also evidenced by the North American winter snowfalls that grow larger every year.

Right wingers think because snow is cold, climate change must be a lie. Course, they don't understand that the increase in snow is actually evidence of the oceans heating up creating even more precipitation. Snow is cold so it can't be because of an increase in heat.

It's that kind of simplistic thinking that suggests to the rest of the world right wingers are simpletons.

 

[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.

Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.

antarctic sea ice increasing - Google Search

Scientists say Antarctic sea ice has grown because global warming has changed antarctic winds and the ocean heating up has created record precipitation as also evidenced by the North American winter snowfalls that grow larger every year.

Right wingers think because snow is cold, climate change must be a lie. Course, they don't understand that the increase in snow is actually evidence of the oceans heating up creating even more precipitation. Snow is cold so it can't be because of an increase in heat.

It's that kind of simplistic thinking that suggests to the rest of the world right wingers are simpletons.

Yeah, we know. No matter what happens, it's because of global warming.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.

antarctic sea ice increasing - Google Search

Scientists say Antarctic sea ice has grown because global warming has changed antarctic winds and the ocean heating up has created record precipitation as also evidenced by the North American winter snowfalls that grow larger every year.

Right wingers think because snow is cold, climate change must be a lie. Course, they don't understand that the increase in snow is actually evidence of the oceans heating up creating even more precipitation. Snow is cold so it can't be because of an increase in heat.

It's that kind of simplistic thinking that suggests to the rest of the world right wingers are simpletons.

There in your post we see the scam working.

If there is no ice....global warming.
If there is ice......global warming
Snow?..... Global warming,
No snow?..... Global warming.
Rain?..... Global warming.
Drought? .....Global warming.

 

[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.

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.

No twisting needed, your own words, moron.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

SO being a bigot is ok if your an alarmist.. got it..

 

[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.

SO being a bigot is ok if your an alarmist.. got it..

Wow, applying your own definitions of terms, are you? Oh dear.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.

Well, kiddies, this is how it is. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As the consequences of the warming become increasing apparent, their are people that are going to be held accountable for their lies. And that accounting will be political and economic. And not to your liking.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

I'm a medical professional and researcher with 32 years experience and 50 years of loving science and history. Care to address my post?

Yes, I'll address your post. No, you do not love science. In fact, you detest it. Otherwise you would recognize the evidence that has been presented. You love politics, and would place the 'way things ought to be' above reality. From your posts, you are damned ignorant of science. You never back your silly flap-yap with links to peer reviewed articles, just make statements and expect us to accept that. Your true peer level is Billy Boob and Frankie Boy.

 

[jc456]

So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.

Well, kiddies, this is how it is. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As the consequences of the warming become increasing apparent, their are people that are going to be held accountable for their lies. And that accounting will be political and economic. And not to your liking.

Well real scientists test theories correct? So in the world of your scientists, have they tested what adding PPM of CO2 will do to temperatures? hmmmm, if so, you fail to present them. Those would be your scientists, the ones way smarter than average human beings who are asking that they provide them to believe them. Hmmmm, now why would that be, well perhaps it is other scientists who state things that don't align with your scientists. So, merely show us the experiments and we'll be better to agree or not with their hypothesis.. See, you have failed in every forum thread to present that. Repeating past mumbo jumbo is meh!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):


UAH Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2015 0.30 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD

Yep. Added CO2, 280 ppm to 400+ ppm, and look at what has happened. For February, 0.30, higher than at any time prior to 1997. My scientists are the people that make up the members of the Scientific Societies. So link me to a scientific society that states AGW is incorrect. You cannot do it because there are none, not even in Outer Slobovia.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.

Well, kiddies, this is how it is. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As the consequences of the warming become increasing apparent, their are people that are going to be held accountable for their lies. And that accounting will be political and economic. And not to your liking.

Well real scientists test theories correct? So in the world of your scientists, have they tested what adding PPM of CO2 will do to temperatures? hmmmm, if so, you fail to present them. Those would be your scientists, the ones way smarter than average human beings who are asking that they provide them to believe them. Hmmmm, now why would that be, well perhaps it's is other scientists who state things that don't align with your scientists. So, merely show us the experiments and we'll be better to agree or not with their hypothesis.. See, you have failed in every forum thread to present that. Repeating past mumbo jumbo is meh!!!

wont happen man made global warming is mostly faith based

they will rely on people like mythbusters to present the key findings as proof

--LOL

 

[jc456]

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):


UAH Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2015 0.30 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD

Yep. Added CO2, 280 ppm to 400+ ppm, and look at what has happened. For February, 0.30, higher than at any time prior to 1997. My scientists are the people that make up the members of the Scientific Societies. So link me to a scientific society that states AGW is incorrect. You cannot do it because there are none, not even in Outer Slobovia.

I completely agree with you, it is why those who don't buy into the farse, have to be independent. And those like Judith Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, states differently today than your societies. Now, she is a scientist.

Edit: oh, still you haven't provided an experiment. Why is that? Don't you wish to have a discussion or are you one that feels we can't because your opinions in group think tanks out weigh others who disagree. That, btw, isn't how science actually works.

 

[mamooth]

At this stage of the game, the only thing in question is which form of mental illness or personality disorder afflicts each particular denier.

With jc, we obviously have a histrionic personality disorder. He can't bear not being the center of attention.

Other commonly seen issues in deniers are:

Narcissism -- "I am incapable of error, as I know better than the rest of the world."

Paranoia -- "It's a conspiracy!"

Antisocial personality disorder-- "Fuck You!"

Schizophrenia -- "My voices told me what you what you really believe!"

Sociopathy -- "Repeating debunked lies for my cause is justified!"