Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[Wild Cobra]

There are plenty of threads for making cases for against the theory. This isn't one of them. I am simply outlining my own reasons for being rather skeptical of the people who tell me "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".

That is not the argument. The argument is that humans are only a small part of the problem, and not the primary problem. I see soot on snow and ice being the second largest problem when dealing with global warming.

I find the tone of most "denier" websites to be pseudo-scientific. I will point out how most deniers tend to fall into that catagory. Indeed we have been given a rather good example in Yoni's first post.

Most AGW sites do the same thing. Few people actually understand what they are saying, but repeat what they are taught.

[Wild Cobra]

Correlation and causality.

Your theory is that observed CO2 changes are the result of temperature changes, not the other way around?

This is what the ice core records bear out.

[Wild Cobra]

Is it really hard to figure out a series of pictures of a melting glacier refers to predictions of glaciers melting due to global warming?

Glaciers are always moving and melting. The question is over the long term, if they melt and mover more than the snowfall the replenishes them.

By your argument, when are all the rivers of the world going to stop running? You act as if precipitation isn't a factor.

In what world is there more ice in the 2009 picture? You can't be serious here. Stick with the insults I guess.

When the 2009 picture appears to have more ice than the 2005 picture...

Aren't you counting the ice in the water also? You know that about 90% of the ice is below the surface, right?

Funny how the oldest picture having the most ice, also has a great deal of snow on the mountains in the background. For this to be a true measure, all other things must be equal.

You're moving the goalposts. Yonivore specifically said none of the doom and gloom predictions have come true, even though the continued melting of glaciers all over the northern hemisphere is exactly what has been predicted and observed all over the Rockies, in California, and in Greenland.

Define "doom and gloom," or how you perceive it. Maybe how he perceives it. What "doom and gloom" has come to pass? If there has been, will you tell us?

Really. What "doom and gloom prediction" has come to pass?

[Wild Cobra]

For the Repugs, it's all about obeying their carbon-industry paymasters.

How Did an Entire Political Party Decide to Reject Climate Change Science

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#

So a key tactic of the carbon-industry and Repugs is to fog up the discussion, by saying it's the science, which is really a red herring, when in fact the "discussion" is really about protecting and increasing the carbon industry's profits.

Texas' Valero and Tesoro are pouring $Ms into CA to defeat environmental regs, because of the "science".

And their campaign $Ms are a tiny percentage of their current and future profits. As with buying cheap Congresscritters, defeating environmental regs provides a huge return on investment.

The oil industry debates climate science? GMAFB

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Sorry, but why do they give? Is it to cover up a lie, or is it to keep a lie from hurting them?

Do people with money always give to change an outcome out of unethical reasons, or do they give to keep the other side from causing unethical things to happen.

You have assumed motive, which has no place in a scientific discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I would suggest you take to heart that the peer review process is only valid, when those who oppose your position agree your methodology and science are valid. It appears to me all you have is like minded people slapping each other on the back. They have ruined the intent of the peer review process.

Tell me. How many peer reviewed papers dealing with AGW have been reviewed by skeptics, and have them agreeing the science is sound?

[ElNono]

I think we can all agree that science does not mean something has to be known, 100%. This is nearly impossible when you're dealing with activities that can have a wide variety of factors, or occurred over a long span of time.

I mean, if I say I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's based off known evidence, historical data, etc etc. Just because I won't know for certain if the sun will rise until I actually see it tomorrow does not mean that my guess is based off faith alone, as OV implies.

Actually, science strives to advance so we can know 100%, and if the Sun is not to rise tomorrow, the causes of why it won't with 100% certainty.

Doesn't mean we don't use theories if they have a high degree of plausibility even if they're not verifiable at this time (Einstein's theory of relativity comes to mind). However, science doesn't stop poking holes at it and doesn't stop trying to verify as we advance the sciences. For example, we now know that some of the relativity rules seem not to apply on the quantum domain.

I think in this arena, due to the sheer volume of data and possible interactions, working at the micro level will help a lot to eventually expand to the macro level. It's difficult enough to build a predictive model nowadays that can tell you what the climate is going to be like 7 days from now at a given place with any high degree of accuracy. It's probably much better than it was 20 years ago. And it most likely will be more accurate 20 years from now. But I think advances in this micro level is what eventually will provide a better understanding of the macro level.

[BlairForceDejuan]

"Denier Movement"

[DarrinS]

Why are AGW cultists so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "denier", obviously a reference to Holocaust deniers?

[Wild Cobra]

Why are AGW cultists so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "denier", obviously a reference to Holocaust deniers?

It makes us sound unreasonable. It implies that we deny global warming and science, when all we deny is their conclusions of cause over global warming. They have yet to show me someone who denies natural warming.

Oh wait... That would be them... They deny that nature can be so powerful!

[DarrinS]

And then, just when you thought it safe to start calling people "deniers" again, you have things like this that undermine your position...

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

Global warming is the pseudo-science. Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

Not one.

That was an interesting read. I wonder if RG thinks this guy is a pseudoscientist?

[Wild Cobra]

That was an interesting read. I wonder if RG thinks this guy is a pseudoscientist?

I think RG has actually come to the middle road on this issue, but doesn't admit it. He will still speak of risk mitigation, but that doesn't mean he buys the AGW bull as much as most people do. He is using precaution.

[baseline bum]

Looks like to me the soot, or what ever airborne aerosol has make the snow black is collecting sunlight and downward IR from the greenhouse effect, melting the snow and ice faster than if it were clean. Clean ice reflects most of the spectra, while dirty snow and ice absorbs something like 5+ times more of this heat.

Black soot? It's ing dirt that makes the ice dirty in the lower areas where the ice isn't as thick. You do know that glaciers aren't static piles of ice right? They flow, and when they do, they take with them. Any glacier in the world looks like that near its moraine if/after seasonal snow has melted off. Thanks for the laugh though.

[baseline bum]

I would suggest you take to heart that the peer review process is only valid, when those who oppose your position agree your methodology and science are valid. It appears to me all you have is like minded people slapping each other on the back. They have ruined the intent of the peer review process.

Tell me. How many peer reviewed papers dealing with AGW have been reviewed by skeptics, and have them agreeing the science is sound?

It's hilarious to think you actually believe scientists don't live to shoot each other down.

[Wild Cobra]

Black soot? It's ing dirt that makes the ice dirty in the lower areas where the ice isn't as thick. You do know that glaciers aren't static piles of ice right? They flow, and when they do, they take with them. Any glacier in the world looks like that near its moraine if/after seasonal snow has melted off. Thanks for the laugh though.

That's no flowing glacier either. It's a pack of snow and ice, where the wind patterns have blown whatever coloration is dark there.

Still, there are glaciers that do have dark top surfaces from aerosols rather than the rocks they plow through. Have you missed the times I showed scientific findings on the topic?

[baseline bum]

Glaciers are always moving and melting. The question is over the long term, if they melt and mover more than the snowfall the replenishes them.

OK captain obvious.

By your argument, when are all the rivers of the world going to stop running? You act as if precipitation isn't a factor.

OK captain jackass. Don't know where you're going here.

When the 2009 picture appears to have more ice than the 2005 picture...

Aren't you counting the ice in the water also? You know that about 90% of the ice is below the surface, right?

So your contention is there's more ice after tons of the glacier has melted into a proglacial lake that's now constantly above freezing temperatures the entire time of its existence except on its very surface in the winter (when it's frozen over)?

Funny how the oldest picture having the most ice, also has a great deal of snow on the mountains in the background. For this to be a true measure, all other things must be equal.

Great deal of snow? I see what looks like one big 'permanent' snowfield in the background that seems to have melted completely now.

Define "doom and gloom," or how you perceive it. Maybe how he perceives it. What "doom and gloom" has come to pass? If there has been, will you tell us?

Really. What "doom and gloom prediction" has come to pass?

I already defined 'doom and gloom' by Yonivore's standards: a sarcastic response to any single result of global warming. He typifies the jackass denier who makes a sarcastic thread when it snows in Minnesota in February.

[Wild Cobra]

It's hilarious to think you actually believe scientists don't live to shoot each other down.

It's hilarious that you always take the angle that disagrees with me, rather than maintaining an open mind.

[baseline bum]

It's hilarious that you always take the angle that disagrees with me, rather than maintaining an open mind.

A global conspiracy of scientists is as ridiculous an idea as the 9/11 crap Galileo constantly spews here. I don't pay his fantasies much mind either.

[MannyIsGod]

Black soot? It's ing dirt that makes the ice dirty in the lower areas where the ice isn't as thick. You do know that glaciers aren't static piles of ice right? They flow, and when they do, they take with them. Any glacier in the world looks like that near its moraine if/after seasonal snow has melted off. Thanks for the laugh though.

I laughed pretty ing had when I read that post.

[DarrinS]

A global conspiracy of scientists is as ridiculous an idea as the 9/11 crap Galileo constantly spews here. I don't pay his fantasies much mind either.

Other than conspiring to hide data, skirt freedom of information laws, and alter the peer review process, there's no conspiracy.

[Wild Cobra]

Other than conspiring to hide data, skirt freedom of information laws, and alter the peer review process, there's no conspiracy.

Don't forget destroying raw data after they extrapolate what they want from it. Who knows what they may have altered, and lied about.

[RandomGuy]

Why are AGW cultists so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "denier", obviously a reference to Holocaust deniers?

"cultists"?

You make it easy for the reverse question to be asked:

Why are AGW deniers so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "cultists"?

The answer to your question is that it assumes the unproven premise that "AGW cultists [are] insecure".

This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy.

It is my term, as it seems appropriate for someone who chooses to deny the weight of scientific evidence, much like creationists do.

To forestall the inevitable statement: Evolution is a lot more settled than AGW/AGCC/AGWhatever.

[RandomGuy]

I think RG has actually come to the middle road on this issue, but doesn't admit it. He will still speak of risk mitigation, but that doesn't mean he buys the AGW bull as much as most people do. He is using precaution.

No, I have not.

I am of the opinion, based on what a rather large majority of scientists who study the issue say, that it is more likely than not that we are affecting our climate though emissions of greenhouse gases, with CO2 principal among them.

I hold this opinion, because the experts in the field hold this opinion. Not having a PhD in climate science, I defer to their expertise.

Further, when I have actually looked into the claims of many skeptics, I have found flawed science, bad logic, and, to the point of the OP, a lot of red flags that indicate to me that the entire movement to discredit this theory is being driven by what I think of as pseudo-science.

I must weigh evidence, claims, and credibility. The balance of that favors AGW, it seems.

[MannyIsGod]

No, I have not.

I am of the opinion, based on what a rather large majority of scientists who study the issue say, that it is more likely than not that we are affecting our climate though emissions of greenhouse gases, with CO2 principal among them.

I hold this opinion, because the experts in the field hold this opinion. Not having a PhD in climate science, I defer to their expertise.

Further, when I have actually looked into the claims of many skeptics, I have found flawed science, bad logic, and, to the point of the OP, a lot of red flags that indicate to me that the entire movement to discredit this theory is being driven by what I think of as pseudo-science.

I must weigh evidence, claims, and credibility. The balance of that favors AGW, it seems.

If you want to understand the science a bit better I recommend David Archer's books. The Long Thaw is very basic and although I've yet to read his latest work I believe it is equally accessible. I doubt you need something super accessible but since you like to torture yourself and argue this on this forum you may like some of the plain English explanations.

[MannyIsGod]

Edit: LOL meant for an email.

[RandomGuy]

I think we can all agree that science does not mean something has to be known, 100%. This is nearly impossible when you're dealing with activities that can have a wide variety of factors, or occurred over a long span of time.

I mean, if I say I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's based off known evidence, historical data, etc etc. Just because I won't know for certain if the sun will rise until I actually see it tomorrow does not mean that my guess is based off faith alone, as OV implies.

Precisely.

The "we have to have a 100%, iron-clad link proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" bit reminds me, again, of creationists attempting to debunk evolution.

They use a very common "its just a theory" argument to make their logically flawed case as well.

Such parallels are there, and that is the main reason for the OP.