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

[rdean]

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

Except climate change has evidence.

 

[kaz]

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.

OK, now I’m calling bullshit to that you are published in anything. You don’t know what empirical data is. You are being snotty and repeating back to me what I told you, that flight is proven fact.

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.

Now we’re into your religious beliefs, amorous guy. Everyone in the scientific community doesn’t believe with you and they endlessly keep coming up with data that contradicts global warming. Also, note nowhere did I say global warming isn’t correct, I just said correctly it is unproven.

 

[PredFan]

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.

No dumbass. How did you get to be a published scientist when you have obvious reading comprehension problems?

 

[kaz]

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

Except climate change has evidence.

Evidence is not proof. I believe in evolution, but as a theory it has more holes than a sieve

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Actually, they are.

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.

Erm, if you want to show long term trends in climate, as well as causes of climate change, you must know paleoclimates. My work has added to that database.

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

Well, then, pull up some of your mathematical work refuting climate change, and let's compare notes, shall we? By the way, global warming is not linear, and I know of no one who says it is. Relegating climate science to a religion? That is exactly what creation say about evolution. Are you sure you aren't a creationist? You do realize the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, right? RIGHT?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

No dumbass. How did you get to be a published scientist when you have obvious reading comprehension problems?

Erm, what? What are you "no dumbass" (ing) about? I asked you no question.

 

[kaz]

Well, then, pull up some of your mathematical work refuting climate change, and let's compare notes, shall we? By the way, global warming is not linear, and I know of no one who says it is. Relegating climate science to a religion? That is exactly what creation say about evolution. Are you sure you aren't a creationist? You do realize the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, right? RIGHT?

For someone who claims to have been published, you are an awful reader.


1) I have never said global warming is wrong, I said it’s not proven


2) We have at most a few decades data on global warming, having thousands of years of data on non-global warming data is useful as a comparison, but it doesn’t mean we have more than a few decades of the effect of man on the climate, and the long term data shows constant change further demonstrating the difficulty of extrapolating on short term data


3) I did not say the extrapolation was linear, what I said was that if it’s not linear, that makes trying to extrapolate it based on short term data even more preposterous

 

[orogenicman]

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.

OK, now I’m calling bullshit to that you are published in anything. You don’t know what empirical data is. You are being snotty and repeating back to me what I told you, that flight is proven fact.

Yes, flight is a proven fact. But knowing it is a fact doesn't explain it. You can't build an airplane simply because you know that birds can fly. You must have a working theory that explains the phenomenon before you jump off that barn with flight feathers strapped to your arms.

Theory of Flight

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.

Now we’re into your religious beliefs, amorous guy. Everyone in the scientific community doesn’t believe with you and they endlessly keep coming up with data that contradicts global warming. Also, note nowhere did I say global warming isn’t correct, I just said correctly it is unproven.

Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, then, pull up some of your mathematical work refuting climate change, and let's compare notes, shall we? By the way, global warming is not linear, and I know of no one who says it is. Relegating climate science to a religion? That is exactly what creation say about evolution. Are you sure you aren't a creationist? You do realize the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, right? RIGHT?

For someone who claims to have been published, you are an awful reader.


1) I have never said global warming is wrong, I said it’s not proven

But then, nothing in science is proven. So what's your point?

2) We have at most a few decades data on global warming, having thousands of years of data on non-global warming data is useful as a comparison, but it doesn’t mean we have more than a few decades of the effect of man on the climate, and the long term data shows constant change further demonstrating the difficulty of extrapolating on short term data.

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years. We have warehouses of that data in the form of miles of ice cores. Every time a geologist describes a sedimentary rock outcrop, he is adding to our knowledge of the Earth's paleoclimate, both in space and time. I know exactly what the climate was like, for instance, in Kentucky, 375 million years ago.

3) I did not say the extrapolation was linear, what I said was that if it’s not linear, that makes trying to extrapolate it based on short term data even more preposterous

When you see regular cycles in the climate that goes back 400,000 years, and then see a huge jump that started 150 years ago (at the beginning of the industrial age) up to the present that looks like nothing we see in the record of the previous 200,000 years, it becomes pretty obvious that the cycle is not natural (as well as not based on "short term data").

 

[PredFan]

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.

No dumbass. How did you get to be a published scientist when you have obvious reading comprehension problems?

Erm, what? What are you "no dumbass" (ing) about? I asked you no question.

 

[kaz]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

 

[orogenicman]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

 

[kaz]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

 

[orogenicman]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

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

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

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

 

[kaz]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

You haven’t shown any that "major scientific institution" has stated global warming is “fact” or that it being man made is “fact” or that your predictions are “fact.” You don’t know what “fact” means in science, again belying your ridiculous claim you were published

 

[orogenicman]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

You haven’t shown any that "major scientific institution" has stated global warming is “fact” or that it being man made is “fact” or that your predictions are “fact.” You don’t know what “fact” means in science, again belying your ridiculous claim you were published

Read it and weep:

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change AGU Newsroom

If you need more, I can supply their statements as well.

 

[kaz]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kaz]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

You haven’t shown any that "major scientific institution" has stated global warming is “fact” or that it being man made is “fact” or that your predictions are “fact.” You don’t know what “fact” means in science, again belying your ridiculous claim you were published

Read it and weep:

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change AGU Newsroom

If you need more, I can supply their statements as well.

Weep about what? That is a POSITION PAPER. Do you seriously not know the difference between a position and a statement of finding of fact?

 

[orogenicman]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

You haven’t shown any that "major scientific institution" has stated global warming is “fact” or that it being man made is “fact” or that your predictions are “fact.” You don’t know what “fact” means in science, again belying your ridiculous claim you were published

Read it and weep:

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change AGU Newsroom

If you need more, I can supply their statements as well.

Weep about what? That is a POSITION PAPER. Do you seriously not know the difference between a position and a statement of finding of fact?

Their position paper is based on all of the data that has been published, particularly in their own publication. They are, after all, a major scientific organization. Do I need to hold your hand while you read it?

WASHINGTON, DC—The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.

”AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. ”Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”

AGU’s position statements are renewed every 4 years. The climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003. It was then revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, and again in February 2012.

AGU’s Position Statement Task Force reviews each statement to determine if it should be renewed as is, modified, or eliminated. In March 2012, the Task Force determined that the climate change position statement would require updating prior to renewal.

With input from AGU’s Council, relevant section and focus group leadership, the Position Statement Task Force, and staff, a panel of experts was subsequently formed to review the statement and make any necessary modifications. A draft of the updated statement was printed in Eos in November 2012, and all AGU members were encouraged to submit comments. After further revisions by the review panel based on the comments received, the statement was then adopted by the AGU Council in June 2013 and by the AGU Board in August 2013.

The newly approved statement will be reported to the AGU membership in the 20 August 2013 issue of Eos, the source of record for all AGU proceedings.

The 14-person panel that reviewed and updated the position statement included the following:

• Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami (approve)
• John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (approve)
• Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication (approve)
• Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
• Peter Huybers, Harvard University (approve)
• Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute (approve)
• Gerald North, Texas A&M University (approve, panel chair)
• Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University (approve)
• Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado Boulder (dissent)
• Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (approve)
• Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA (approve)
• Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics (approve)
• Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
• Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (approve)

 

[orogenicman]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

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

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

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

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

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

You are welcome.

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