Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[DarrinS]

Some things are much more predictable than others.

Yeah I'm sure that's it.

Do you agree that there is less uncertainty with eclipse predictions than global climate predictions? That's why I thought The Atlantic article you posted was re ed.

[Spurminator]

Do you agree that there is less uncertainty with eclipse predictions than global climate predictions? That's why I thought The Atlantic article you posted was re ed.

Sure, but I believe experts in the space would disagree with you about how uncertain it is.

I believe your uncertainty, like most vocal climate change skeptics, is motivated by politically-nurtured ignorance. You have been told to be skeptical of this specific thing that there is scientific consensus on because you have been trained to do so.

Had there been big business motivation to train you to be skeptical of eclipse sunglasses, and conservative media was feeding sunglass skepticism constantly, I believe you would have gone along with them as well. No offense.

Also, what Atlantic article? I posted a NASA.gov link.

[DarrinS]

Sure, but I believe experts in the space would disagree with you about how uncertain it is.

I believe your uncertainty, like most vocal climate change skeptics, is motivated by politically-nurtured ignorance. You have been told to be skeptical of this specific thing that there is scientific consensus on because you have been trained to do so.

Had there been big business motivation to train you to be skeptical of eclipse sunglasses, and conservative media was feeding sunglass skepticism constantly, I believe you would have gone along with them as well. No offense.

Also, what Atlantic article? I posted a NASA.gov link.

My bad. It was very similar to this article.


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...happen/537090/

[Spurminator]

Plus, my post was specifically about the eclipse sunglasses, so frankly I'm not sure what the predictability of an eclipse even has to do with it.

[DarrinS]

Plus, my post was specifically about the eclipse sunglasses, so frankly I'm not sure what the predictability of an eclipse even has to do with it.

We believe the thing about the glasses because it's falsifiable.

[Spurminator]

We believe the thing about the glasses because it's falsifiable.

Not until after permanent damage has been done. Do you apply this level of scrutiny to every scientific consensus?

[DarrinS]

Not until after permanent damage has been done. Do you apply this level of scrutiny to every scientific consensus?

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

[Wild Cobra]

Bull . You are ignorant of even what an editor does.

The concensus page cites

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
International academies: Joint statement
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Ins ute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Ins ute of Biological Sciences
American Ins ute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Ins ute of Marine Science
Australian Ins ute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Ins ute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Ins ute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Ins ute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Ins ution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Ins ute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Ins ute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Ins ute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins ution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences


J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

I know what it says. I also have read all those studies. have you?

[Wild Cobra]

Holy this is some lazy excuse-making.

You really think NASA's just leaving it to the page editors to editorialize however they want?

With how is in charge... Yes!

[Spurminator]

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

Where'd you pick up that pithy bull ?

So scientific fact only exists in areas where scientists disagree on fact.

I guess we'll never evolve eclipse sunglasses either, since there's scientific consensus on their usage.

Scientific consensus = No progress = Incorrect conclusion

[Chris]

He's right. All the greatest scientists were those who went against the grain or consensus if you will.

[Spurminator]

He's right. All the greatest scientists were those who went against the grain or consensus if you will.

And yet very few scientists who have ever gone against the consensus were right or great.

Keep holding out hope that the next Newton will come along and discover a politically convenient new revelation about manmade climate change.

[DarrinS]

Where'd you pick up that pithy bull ?

So scientific fact only exists in areas where scientists disagree on fact.

I guess we'll never evolve eclipse sunglasses either, since there's scientific consensus on their usage.

Scientific consensus = No progress = Incorrect conclusion

Contntintal drift was once considered pseudoscience.

[Spurminator]

Contntintal drift was once considered pseudoscience.

Yes, Darrin, sometimes a consensus has been proven wrong. Thank you for once again articulating your point through examples of extreme rarities and confirmation bias.

You set your hopes for a change of consensus only on the consensuses that you find politically inconvenient. It's so predictable at this point it's boring.

[DarrinS]

And this is where you get into your typical confirmation bias / exceptions being the rule, etc.

You set your hopes for a change of consensus only on the consensuses that you find politically inconvenient. Predictably.

Stress causes ulcers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

No but in a democracy, political disputes progress through concensus. Your fossil fuel overlords have made this a political issue. While obtuseness fits you, it is not compelling.

This is a complex topic. You supposedly have been trained in modeling and the math behind combining systems yet you are unable to understand the methods or science used as you made clear when I tried discussing Hansen's models with you. The layman has no chance at all.

The most intelligent and best educated are the key and your masters and useful idiots such as yourself have a vested interest in their not being a consensus amongst said experts. That is why you fight it. Nonetheless the lion's share of scientists find the theory of AGW and its impacts to be credible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know what it says. I also have read all those studies. have you?

We read them when they came out over the past decade, dimwit. Your memory is .

[DarrinS]

No but in a democracy, political disputes progress through concensus. Your fossil fuel overlords have made this a political issue. While obtuseness fits you, it is not compelling.

This is a complex topic. You supposedly have been trained in modeling and the math behind combining systems yet you are unable to understand the methods or science used as you made clear when I tried discussing Hansen's models with you. The layman has no chance at all.

The most intelligent and best educated are the key and your masters and useful idiots such as yourself have a vested interest in their not being a consensus amongst said experts. That is why you fight it. Nonetheless the lion's share of scientists find the theory of AGW and its impacts to be credible.

Ok, Dr. Zaius

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's right. All the greatest scientists were those who went against the grain or consensus if you will.

Some great scientists sure. Watson and Crick were not going against the grain. Curie, Pasteur, Cook, Maxwell, Faraday, Fermi, etc were not. Einstein was from the continent and while he had to convince the Brits of Leibniz over Newton but there was no world consensus.

There is no church holding to Aquinas' doctrine demanding that science adhere to doctrine anymore. Welcome to the modern era. Darwin, Galileo, and Renaissance era scientists had to fight the church. We do not.

The western tradition derives from the 19th century and the pragmatism of Mills and James.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are the doctor in this scene. You claiming to be an engineer is comparable.

[Wild Cobra]

We read them when they came out over the past decade, dimwit. Your memory is .

Just shows you are a moron for not understanding actual implication.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just shows you are a moron for not understanding actual implication.

It helps to point out what I don't understand. We both know you won't do that because you have been shamed so many times.

I remember those studies coming out and someone like RG or Manny would post them. We can reprise that if you would like. Or you can tell us about IR absorption by the ocean, ocean circulation, linear systems, flywheels, capacitors, solubility charts, solar burps, or the exoneration of CO2.

Or you can call me stupid and hope it sticks. You lack courage and pride. Sad state of things for Wile E Coyote.

[Wild Cobra]

It helps to point out what I don't understand. We both know you won't do that because you have been shamed so many times.

I remember those studies coming out and someone like RG or Manny would post them. We can reprise that if you would like. Or you can tell us about IR absorption by the ocean, ocean circulation, linear systems, flywheels, capacitors, solubility charts, solar burps, or the exoneration of CO2.

Or you can call me stupid and hope it sticks. You lack courage and pride. Sad state of things for Wile E Coyote.

I'm sorry you are so pathetic. I have explained the 97% studies long ago. I guess you IQ is too low to comprehend.

The best the 97% studies give us is that 97% of the climate scientists agree that mankind is responsible for some of the waring. None of them support the claim hat 97% say mankind is responsible for most of the warming. If you disagree, then please show us which study claims 97% and most.

Hint... None of them support that contention!

[RandomGuy]

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

That is the only way science progresses. To claim otherwise is to simply demonstrate an embarrassing ignorance of the scientific process.

Ouch.

[boutons_deux]

Exxon Misled the Public on Climate Change, Study Says

As Exxon Mobil responded to news reports in 2015 that said that the company had spread doubt about the risks of climate change despite its own extensive research in the field, it urged the public to “read the do ents” for themselves.

Now two Harvard researchers have done just that, reviewing nearly 200 do ents representing Exxon’s research and its public statements and concluding that the company “misled the public” about climate change even as its own scientists were recognizing greenhouse gas emissions as a risk to the planet.

The Harvard researchers — Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science whose work has focused on the energy and tobacco industries, and Geoffrey Supran, a postdoctoral fellow — published their peer-reviewed paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters on Wednesday. They also published their findings in an Opinion article in Wednesday’s New York Times.

They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time.

Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that

climate change was real and was caused by humans.

But 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/c...er=rss&emc=rss