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

[Billy_Bob]

Noise. Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena. In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.

So then what's the significance of 2014 being the "hottest year on record" if it's just part of the noise? Serious question, I'm trying to figure this out from a data perspective.

The trend is clear (at least for the last 40 years) but the data doesn't seem to match the conclusions so I must be missing something.

38% confidence....

The noise is so great and the rise in the hundredths of a degree (which is clearly within the MOE) that there is little or no confidence in this.

 

[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.

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.

The world is a BIG place and the GOP have tiny minds.

Where there is drought, there is no ice.

Where there is snow, there is way, way too much.

Just as scientists predicted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives wants to silence scientific debate because like everything else they do, they lose in the arena of ideas; they can only win through force

 

[skookerasbil]

Billy........bookmark this vid and when you have a couple of hours, take a listen. Your jaw will hit the floor.........puts all this global warming bull shit so much more into focus because you get a deep understanding of the motivation for this scam.................all of these dopes have zero understanding of this. They really think it is about science and scientific findings!! Brave New World is in full operational mode and the Stoopids are all in and are long since beyond gone............and will be the first ones to be falling all over themselves to get brain chipped

 

[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.

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

 

[asterism]

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 irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Are hybrids actually more energy efficient? They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce. I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars. But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective. Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.

 

[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

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Are hybrids actually more energy efficient? They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce. I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars. But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective. Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.

And are recyclable.

 

[Old Rocks]

From bauxite to aluminum is very energy intensive. From aluminum scrap to aluminum is not. Same for the batteries.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[asterism]

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Are hybrids actually more energy efficient? They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce. I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars. But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective. Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.

And are recyclable.

Does the recycling process save energy or just materials? There is a difference.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask me if I am a socialist, the answer is yes. Ask me if I am a capitalist, the answer is yes. These are not mutually exclusive systems. We, and every other first world nation, use both. That you people somehow believe they are exclusive is merely indictutive of your lack of knowledge about how the world really works.

 

[asterism]

From bauxite to aluminum is very energy intensive. From aluminum scrap to aluminum is not. Same for the batteries.

Has this issue been studied or is it just an assumption? I'd like to think that the new technology is better overall, but I've not found much information about quantifiable results.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.
.

Who couldn't love this shit??!!! The Antarctic ice is growing which is clearly a sign of global warming!!!

--LOL

true

--LOL

 

[orogenicman]

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Are hybrids actually more energy efficient? They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce. I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars. But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective. Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.

And are recyclable.

Does the recycling process save energy or just materials? There is a difference.

It does both. By recycling materials, you not only are saving resources, but saving most of the energy that would be needed to make the same refined product from raw ore. It takes much less energy and raw material to recycle a battery than it does to make a new one from scratch.

 

[jc456]

Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.[/QUOTE

Based on what?

 

[jc456]

Noise. Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena. In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.

Meaning CO2 doesn't matter.

 

[kaz]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science)

Anti-evolution is a religious issue. I don’t see what that has to do with other issues.

Global warming has no clear science answer, only questions. Even the proponents can’t decide what it means as they call it “climate change.” When you can answer the basic questions, come back:

1) Is it “warming” or climate change?

2) Is it caused by man?

3) What is the long term impact? The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient

4) Why do the so called believers propose nothing that would actually counter global warming? They propose things like sending trillions to the poor while exempting the biggest polluters like China. Say what?

5) Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer? I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal. She also has a PhD in Math, her area of expertise is theoretical statistics. She’s also active in environmental causes, such as having done a stint as treasurer in her local Audubon Society.

She estimates it would take 100-150 years to gather statistically significant data to prove global warming. She and I actually agree on that issue, one of few. Global warming is not proven, it makes a lot more sense to take reasonable precautions anyway.


But until those like you who want to use it to attack your political enemies (re-read your post) stop using for that reason, nothing productive will come out of it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science)

Anti-evolution is a religious issue. I don’t see what that has to do with other issues.

Global warming has no clear science answer, only questions. Even the proponents can’t decide what it means as they call it “climate change.” When you can answer the basic questions, come back:

1) Is it “warming” or climate change?

2) Is it caused by man?

3) What is the long term impact? The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient

4) Why do the so called believers propose nothing that would actually counter global warming? They propose things like sending trillions to the poor while exempting the biggest polluters like China. Say what?

5) Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer? I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal. She also has a PhD in Math, her area of expertise is theoretical statistics. She’s also active in environmental causes, such as having done a stint as treasurer in her local Audubon Society.

She estimates it would take 100-150 years to gather statistically significant data to prove global warming. She and I actually agree on that issue, one of few. Global warming is not proven, it makes a lot more sense to take reasonable precautions anyway.


But until those like you who want to use it to attack your political enemies (re-read your post) stop using for that reason, nothing productive will come out of it.

You're asking reasonable, scientific questions of a EnviroMarxist Cult. I don't expect any sane or reasonable responses

 

[asterism]

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Are hybrids actually more energy efficient? They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce. I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars. But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective. Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.

And are recyclable.

Does the recycling process save energy or just materials? There is a difference.

It does both. By recycling materials, you not only are saving resources, but saving most of the energy that would be needed to make the same refined product from raw ore. It takes much less energy and raw material to recycle a battery than it does to make a new one from scratch.

Is there any proof of this energy savings? I haven't been able to find any. The DOE certainly doesn't mention energy savings at all.

Alternative Fuels Data Center Batteries for Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles

 

[Treeshepherd]

3) What is the long term impact? The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient

5) Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer? I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?

3) Impossible to say. There's no doubt that a 40% increase in CO2 levels has some effect. Not all the effects are negative (rainforest grows faster), but there's also the possibility that the overall effect is negligible. If you changed the salt content of your soup from 330 parts per million to 400 ppm, you wouldn't taste any difference. Larger factors are at play, like that gigantic burning sphere up in the sky that's 1.3 million times bigger than earth.

5) I see AGW as more of a budget hammer. Just look at the budgets of NASA, NOAA and the EPA, and you find that they increasingly use AGW as a justification. Even the Pentagon has begun to use AGW in their budget proposals, arguing that climate change is a destabilizing factor in global order. AGW is a meal ticket. I'm being Captain Obvious here, but clearly some people don't get that yet.