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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If AGW means the greenhouse effect that humans contribute some amount to, then I've never claimed that was false.

If AGW means CAWG (C = catastrophic), then, yes, I am skeptical of that.

I need to make a Darrin and WC are full of in the denial of their denials thread. Gimme a sec. I'll search for it again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin on his crusade that the 'hiatus' disproved AGW. He links a half dozen articles to support his point and quips sarcastically that the 'heat is hiding in the oceans. In light of the recent El Nino he particularly looks ignorant.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7577805

Somone's political affiliation has nothing to do with their position on the global warming debate.


By the way, the trend since 2000 is almost a flat line.

That's why the IPCC keeps revising their worst case scenarios to be less and less catastrophic.

Global Warming is a religion, but nobody seems to question it -- call it FAITH.


What's worse -- having irrational religious beliefs or irration "scientific" beliefs?


Weren't the abolitionists motivated by their religious convictions? Crazy religious freaks! How dare they have a moral compass!

Global warming "deniers" -- LOL


Yes, indeed, the climate is changing. Interestingly enough, it will do this with or without the existence of human beings.

No one "poo poos" the data, just some people's interpretation of the data.

We haven't has any warming in the last 10 years. Have CO2 emmisions declined in that time period?

There was a decline in global temperatures form the mid 1940's to the early 1970's. Was that a time period when CO2 emmissions were on the rise or fall?


YES, I think that humans influence the climate -- they have since they first discovered fire. Do I think Florida will be underwater any time soon? NO. So, you can believe in "climate change" (always has -- always will) without being a Gore catastrophist.

Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Gro...ticle13385.htm

The above was particularly ignorant.

By the way, this is a must read for anyone who believes in "consensus" science.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nal_9-5-07.pdf

Low temperature records set in Denver and Montana

Very simple question:

What is the temperature trend for the years 2006-2008?

That's a 3-year period of time, not a single event.

Since there is such a STRONG correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, I would expect the temperature to continue rising.


How about the trend over the last 10 years? It's pretty flat. Have humans reduced emmisions in the last 10 years?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People skeptical of AGW don't have to prove anything. AGW is not some great "truth" that so-called "deniers" have the burden to disprove. If it were, there would be no need for this thread, right?

Today, we are no more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate.

/thread

Actually, I'm not trying to completely dismiss AGW theory. I just have issue with it being considered a scientific reality like continental drift. I just don't agree that we know enough (right now) to say one way or the other.


Furthermore, whether there is AGW or not, I'm certainly not convinced that is cons utes a "crisis".

Good article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...l-warming.html

What is the trend of the last 10 years?

Well, CO2 was rising between 1940 and 1970, so why did the average temperature decline during that period?



By the way, the hottest year in history was 1934, not 1998 (after the "hockey stick" was thoroughly debunked and NASA corrected their data). You'll probably remember the hockey stick graph because it has been featured so prominantly in IPCC reports as well as the giant graph in Al Gore's science fiction thriller.

Showing the map was a joke.


A bigger joke is telling people that a trace gas that makes up less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere will push us past some ficticious "tipping points" that will flood our costal cities.

Oh, and by the way, humans only contribute about 3 percent to that 0.04 percent in our atmosphere.

If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity.

To believe in AGW, you have to believe the following are true:


1. The global temperature of the 1990's to present is remarkable and unprecedented.

2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels in history and are largely because of human activity.

3. There is a direct causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, i.e. increased CO2 results in an increased temperature.


If any of these are not true, then one would have to be skeptical of AGW. If ALL are untrue, then you'd have to be VERY skeptical of AGW.

How about the last 10 years of data?

I used to be on the AGW bus, but I've changed my mind based on years of researching this topic on my own.

The above is your slimy pandering.

The global temperature record of the last decade is not subjective, would you agree?


When you see continued rising of CO2 and a declining average temperature, you have to stop and think about it.

No. According to theory, when CO2 rises, temperature is supposed to rise. Current trends are just the opposite.


BTW, what are the "norm" climate variations?

[DarrinS]

Great work, detective Fuzzy

From 2011

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5414665

No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with re ed doesn't add much to the debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Great work, detective Fuzzy

From 2011

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5414665

You lied in 2011 too. You clearly indicate that you are skeptical that it had warmed since the 1930s etc in the quotes above.

That your sophistry goes as the wind blows and is centered around your prefered political outcome of inaction is not lost, shill. You're arguing for a conclusion and it's obvious. It's why I call you a sophist piece of .

[DarrinS]

You lied in 2011 too. You clearly indicate that you are skeptical that it had warmed since the 1930s etc in the quotes above.

That your sophistry goes as the wind blows and is centered around your prefered political outcome of inaction is not lost, shill. You're arguing for a conclusion and it's obvious. It's why I call you a sophist piece of .

Oh noes -- not the "sophist piece of " insult.


I don't "believe" (because you can't "deny" unknown future events) that major American cities will be underwater because of plant food. If that makes me a SPOS, so be it.


At least you were exposed as being a liar.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh noes -- not the "sophist piece of " insult.


I don't "believe" (because you can't "deny" unknown future events) that major American cities will be underwater because of plant food. If that makes me a SPOS, so be it.


At least you were exposed as being a liar.

I get that your not bothered by what you are. It is both and observation and an insult. I say it for the sake of our audience.

You denied AGW repeatedly from multiple angles; your latest dissemble notwithstanding. That isn't a lie.

You try to dissemble to another page I'll just repost it btw. that tactic won't work either, shill.

[DarrinS]

I get that your not bothered by what you are. It is both and observation and an insult. I say it for the sake of our audience.

You denied AGW repeatedly from multiple angles; your latest dissemble notwithstanding. That isn't a lie.

You try to dissemble to another page I'll just repost it btw. that tactic won't work either, shill.

Bless your little heart. You tried.

I don't refute greenhouse effect or that it warmed in the 20rh century, if that's what you mean by AGW.

I will continue to "deny", i.e. be unconcerned, about global warming, climate change, or whatever they call it next.


Keep up the good fight and don't get so stoned that you forget to feed your cat.

[Wild Cobra]

I put that in there on purpose to bait you, because it speaks to how the ultimate impact of what the climate scientists say could happen, especially when it comes to economic and social impacts.

If you want to not only speak to the science of climate, but what will happen to the humans who live in that, you would want exactly someone with expertise in that.

Which is exactly what the Union of Concerned Scientists appears to have done.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Notice you said all about the qualifications of the other real scientists who disagree with you on the impacts and scope of human caused climate change.

You don't get it. By default, these other organizations do believe other organization. They are agreeing without really understanding the debate.

[Wild Cobra]

If AGW means the greenhouse effect that humans contribute some amount to, then I've never claimed that was false.

If AGW means CAWG (C = catastrophic), then, yes, I am skeptical of that.

That fuzzy turd is too stupid to understand what you just said.

[RandomGuy]

You know how one becomes a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?

You give them at least $25

https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/...961.1463692507

So ing what?

What does it take to post on blogs denying humans are causing climate change by burning fossil fuels?

[RandomGuy]

You don't get it. By default, these other organizations do believe other organization. They are agreeing without really understanding the debate.

I get it alright.

I get that the scientists who understand this best, understand it best.

And you, and the rest of the anti-science movement... don't.

Pretty simple.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bless your little heart. You tried.

I don't refute greenhouse effect or that it warmed in the 20rh century, if that's what you mean by AGW.

I will continue to "deny", i.e. be unconcerned, about global warming, climate change, or whatever they call it next.


Keep up the good fight and don't get so stoned that you forget to feed your cat.

You may not anymore because you realize how untenable your previous position but you are easily demonstrated as a sophist of the first order. Your deflection attempts with ad hominem flails underscore this well.

You did say that it hadn't warmed explicitly. You did say that the warming of CO2 was in question. Multiple times already quoted.

You can continue to be a sophist piece of if it suits you.

[Wild Cobra]

I get it alright.

I get that the scientists who understand this best, understand it best.

And you, and the rest of the anti-science movement... don't.

Pretty simple.

The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

[boutons_deux]

O'Reilly's hit man Jesse Watters tells kids to doubt climate science because there were ‘no humans with cars’ after ice age

Fox News producer and occasional host Jesse Watters suggested on Monday that man-made climate change was likely a hoax because there were no “humans with cars” to generate greenhouse gasses at the end of the last ice age.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/fox-host-tells-kids-to-doubt-climate-science-because-there-were-no-humans-with-cars-after-ice-age/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

[RandomGuy]

The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

Translation:


Thanks, Pee-Wee.

[RandomGuy]

The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

The problem with your bad arguements, and Darrins dumb links is that they prove the OP.

Since I am here to make the case that there is a whole lot of stupid pseudoscience out there, let's start with a little gem from the GOP's members on (chokes back vomit) the House Science Committee saying something so stupid that it took a late night comedian to point it out:






FWIW, feel free to expand on your assertion that someone is "denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC".

Define your terms then provide some evidence. That is how we get to the truth, both in public policy and science.

Otherwise you are pulling something out of the creationist handbook. "teach the controversy" when there isn't one. Dishonest in the extreme.

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

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 will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy


(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...redux-edition/

Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"

Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.

“The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com


In contrast, Climate change Deniers:

ignore the facts and evidence;
do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...ain/#more-2959

[DarrinS]

Projections from computer models are not facts or evidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Projections from computer models are not facts or evidence.

Comments like this are why I have doubts about you being an engineer. You can argue that they are not accurately modeling reality but to pretend like they don't try or that the models aren't improving with their topological arrangements and thermodynamic nad other factual functions is gratuitous nonsense that one can expect from a shill.

This is also another reason why I call you a sophist piece of . This conversation has been going on for years. Remember when your shilliness said you appreciated BEST and you were talking about models before?

Shall I link BEST's program weighing the models for accuracy and precision again? It's all a quite scientific search for the truth as opposed to your regurgitation of the old canned PT-style rebuttal.

[RandomGuy]

[Wild Cobra]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...

[DarrinS]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...

[RandomGuy]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...

You want me to find statements where you claim a "massive conspiracy" among climate scientists?

[RandomGuy]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...

I understand why the margin of error is like it is. I just don't trust scientific peer reviewed papers done in a closer peer review process, especially with such a politically motivated topic. Wouldn't these results be believable if the more skeptical members of the science community reviewed them as well?

Yes, I understand.

You aren't willing to go there. If scientists not trained in the church of AGW were to point out fallacies, the papers would never make it through the peer review process. that's why it's a closed process. Only those who already believe the dogma are allowed to participate.

A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.

"the peer review process is controlled by alarmist scientists to limit skeptical articles".

Also known as a conspiracy.

By all means, clarify. Do you now think there is no concerted effort to keep out "skeptical" arguments from peer-reviewed papers, i.e. there is no conspiracy?

Did I get that wrong?

Do tell.