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

[IanC]

It seems like the middle of the road posters have abandoned this forum, leaving only the extremists from either side to fling pooh at each other from the safety of their immutable positions.

 

[PredFan]

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.

And as always, you are dead wrong.

Most medical professionals are applied scientists, not hard or research scientists. What professional papers have you published, and in what journals? What do any of them tell us about atmospheric science?

Hey nut job, this shows exactly how little you know. I don't claim to be an expert in atmospheric science. If you actually read my post you would know that that is irrelevant. You are a believer and I do not expect you have the knowledge, maturity and intellectual honesty to ever admit you are wrong so I am done caring. Remain ignorant. My post is for those who are not ideologues and want to know the truth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

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.

The problem that won't go away is that fraud is not science. Bullying people to keep silence about fraud is not knowledge.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Nissan recycles over 97% of their waste, at a profit.

Nissan Recovers 97 of Auto Shredder Residue Environmental Leader Environmental Management Sustainable Development News

Nissan recovered 112,507.2 tons of the 115,741.4 tons of automobile shredder residue (ASR) collected from 533,836 vehicles in Japan in fiscal year 2013 — an amount that represents a recovery ratio of 97.2 percent — according to the automaker.

This means Nissan has achieved the Japan Automobile Recycling law ASR recovery target rate of 70 percent by FY2015 for eight consecutive years.

In its other recycling results achieved between April 2013 to March 2014, Nissan says the recovery ratio for end-of-life (ELV) vehicles (actual value) was 99.5 percent. The company also reduced the amount of ASR-related landfill and incineration disposal to zero and and participated in a trial of recycling ASR, with an advanced method of sorting ASR and process them as resources.

Nissan recovered 1,603,679 airbag-related products from 445,635 vehicles through recovery processing and on-board deployment operations. The airbag recycling ratio was 94.1 percent, exceeding the legal requirement of 85 percent. A total of 138,602.149 kg of fluorocarbons collected from 490,825 vehicles was processed.

The cost of the recycling efforts for these specified materials amounted to 5,400,091,730 yen ($52,677,895). Recycling fees and income generated from the fund for vehicle recycling totaled 6,286,540,805 yen ($61,325,206), contributing to a net surplus of 886,449,075 yen ($8,647,311).

 

[orogenicman]

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.

And as always, you are dead wrong.

Most medical professionals are applied scientists, not hard or research scientists. What professional papers have you published, and in what journals? What do any of them tell us about atmospheric science?

Hey nut job, this shows exactly how little you know. I don't claim to be an expert in atmospheric science.

Neither do any of you rightwingnut types. And yet here you all are trying to convince everyone that you know more about climate change than the scientists who actually are experts in atmospheric science. Go figure.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Deniers use the exact same anti-science arguments and rhetoric as anti-evolutionists (and most are conservatives - as if you didn't know. That is what it has to do with "other issues".

Global warming has no clear science answer, only questions.

See below...

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?

Yes.

2) Is it caused by man?

Yes.

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.

Rising sea levels, increased long-term regional droughts, increased regional rainfall, flooding, and more intense storms, melting ice caps and glaciers, possible release of methane clathrates in the oceans and arctic permafrost, melting permafrost, increased human migrations as a result of all of the above, possible/likely water wars, economic distress for many nations, etc., etc., etc. The Earth? It'll keep on doing what it does. Not that we'll be around to see it. Why? Because people aren't as resilient as the Earth.

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?

We've been saying for years what needs to happen. If you haven't been listening, who's fault is that? As for China, they have agreed to reduce emissions and the heavy pollution they are emitting as well. You didn't know this? Huh.

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?

Why? Because you get what you give, pal.

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal.

That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

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.

Right. So why doesn't she publish her "professional" findings. Then you can post a link to it right here.

 

[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.

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.

The problem that won't go away is that fraud is not science. Bullying people to keep silence about fraud is not knowledge.

When you publish your "professional" findings about climate change in a peer reviewed scientific publication, you will have my ear. Until then, frag off.

 

[kaz]

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal.

That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

Are you for real? I’m teasing, Orgasm. Grow up. You must just be a joy to know. We're buds, chillax

 

[kaz]

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?

Why? Because you get what you give, pal.

Well, amorous guy, as a member of neither of the two pathetic major parties, you both do this, stop whining and pointing fingers. It starts with both sides owning up to your own behavior.

And you demonstrated the point of my point. You don’t believe in global warming. When asked why you just attack your opponents, you point fingers. If you actually believed this was a cataclysmic event, you would find past your eight year old blame game. Yet you revel in it.

 

[orogenicman]

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal.

That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

Are you for real? I’m teasing, Orgasm. Grow up. You must just be a joy to know. We're buds, chillax

You call your own sister a "black sheep", and then tell me to grow up? Why don't you invite her into this conversation (that'll be fun)?

 

[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?

Yes.

2) Is it caused by man?

Yes.

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.

Rising sea levels, increased long-term regional droughts, increased regional rainfall, flooding, and more intense storms, melting ice caps and glaciers, possible release of methane clathrates in the oceans and arctic permafrost, melting permafrost, increased human migrations as a result of all of the above, possible/likely water wars, economic distress for many nations, etc., etc., etc. The Earth? It'll keep on doing what it does. Not that we'll be around to see it. Why? Because people aren't as resilient as the Earth.

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?

We've been saying for years what needs to happen. If you haven't been listening, who's fault is that? As for China, they have agreed to reduce emissions and the heavy pollution they are emitting as well. You didn't know this? Huh.

This is classic. You, the self professed expert in everything. Yet then you come back with this:

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.

Right. So why doesn't she publish her "professional" findings. Then you can post a link to it right here.

So here you go, Orgasm, then why don’t you publish your professional findings? Then you can post a link to it here. Wow. I'm not the first to call you a pompous ass, am I?

 

[kaz]

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal.

That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

Are you for real? I’m teasing, Orgasm. Grow up. You must just be a joy to know. We're buds, chillax

You call your own sister a "black sheep", and then tell me to grow up? Why don't you invite her into this conversation (that'll be fun)?

Seriously, you need a stickectomy, Orgasm.

My father and mother and everyone I know in their families were conservatives, my brother and I are libertarians. She’s the black sheep. Her answer to that BTW is yeah and she’s proud of it. She doesn’t have the stick rammed up her ass that you do. We're buds, we agree to disagree. It must be very unpleasant in the Orgasm household

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Why? Because you get what you give, pal.

Well, amorous guy, as a member of neither of the two pathetic major parties, you both do this, stop whining and pointing fingers. It starts with both sides owning up to your own behavior.

And you demonstrated the point of my point. You don’t believe in global warming. When asked why you just attack your opponents, you point fingers. If you actually believed this was a cataclysmic event, you would find past your eight year old blame game. Yet you revel in it.

It starts when the deniers stop spreading lies about the science and start cooperating to fix the problem. I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity. I believe because I have the training to understand that it is real, to see that the evidence is overwhelming, and what that means for our future, and that of our children. When you realize, like I do, that we simply cannot continue to pump 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere every year and not expect severe consequences, then perhaps you will stop your own silly denier games and get to the task of helping the rest of us find reasonable solutions.

 

[kaz]

I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity.

Flight isn't a theory since it's proven by empirical data. Relativity is consistent with what we know so far. Global warming is pure long term extrapolation based on short term data with heavy reliance on assumed causes, those three are all completely different

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Yes.

2) Is it caused by man?

Yes.

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.

Rising sea levels, increased long-term regional droughts, increased regional rainfall, flooding, and more intense storms, melting ice caps and glaciers, possible release of methane clathrates in the oceans and arctic permafrost, melting permafrost, increased human migrations as a result of all of the above, possible/likely water wars, economic distress for many nations, etc., etc., etc. The Earth? It'll keep on doing what it does. Not that we'll be around to see it. Why? Because people aren't as resilient as the Earth.

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?

We've been saying for years what needs to happen. If you haven't been listening, who's fault is that? As for China, they have agreed to reduce emissions and the heavy pollution they are emitting as well. You didn't know this? Huh.

This is classic. You, the self professed expert in everything. Yet then you come back with this:

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.

Right. So why doesn't she publish her "professional" findings. Then you can post a link to it right here.

So here you go, Orgasm, then why don’t you publish your professional findings? Then you can post a link to it here. Wow. I'm not the first to call you a pompous ass, am I?

I am published, but in the journal of Invertebrate paleontology. Now mind you, my publication isn't on climate change, but it does describe Middle Mississippian paleoclimate. And understanding past climate is a part of the equation, dude. By the way, I never claimed to be an expert in "everything". But I am a geologist so I do have more advanced knowledge of the Earth than the guy on the street (and most of the people posting here).

 

[orogenicman]

I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity.

Flight isn't a theory since it's proven by empirical data. Relativity is consistent with what we know so far. Global warming is pure long term extrapolation based on short term data with heavy reliance on assumed causes, those three are all completely different

Flight is a fact. The theory of flight is what gives us airplanes, dude. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Climate science has not only demonstrated this fact, it has also discovered it's cause, a cause which is consistent with what we know. So no, they are not completely different. If they were, every nation on the planet, and every scientific institution on the planet wouldn't agree with me and disagree with you.

 

[rdean]

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

A 6 thousand year old earth and evolution is a lie and vaccines cause autism are NOT "scientific debate". They are bad jokes.

 

[kaz]

I am published, but in the journal of Invertebrate paleontology. Now mind you, my publication isn't on climate change, but it does describe Middle Mississippian paleoclimate. And understanding past climate is a part of the equation, dude. By the way, I never claimed to be an expert in "everything". But I am a geologist so I do have more advanced knowledge of the Earth than the guy on the street (and most of the people posting here).

I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact. You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.


I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is. Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?


You believe in climate change just like conservative Christians believe in creationism, pure faith

 

[orogenicman]

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal.

That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

Are you for real? I’m teasing, Orgasm. Grow up. You must just be a joy to know. We're buds, chillax

You call your own sister a "black sheep", and then tell me to grow up? Why don't you invite her into this conversation (that'll be fun)?

Seriously, you need a stickectomy, Orgasm.

My father and mother and everyone I know in their families were conservatives, my brother and I are libertarians. She’s the black sheep. Her answer to that BTW is yeah and she’s proud of it. She doesn’t have the stick rammed up her ass that you do. We're buds, we agree to disagree. It must be very unpleasant in the Orgasm household

Tell her that you are telling strangers on the internet that she is the black sheep of your family, then let's see how long that stick grows out of her arse. My family is rather fun, partially because they trust that I won't single any of them out on the internet as a "black sheep".

 

[rdean]

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?

Science.

Do keep up.