Science Deniers are Everywhere

So we disagree. I'll get over it, and I trust that you will, too.

All that, Max, and where did you end up?

"and done the experiments."

I was hoping you would answer my question Thomas. How do you convince Climate Change Deniers to accept the science when they have no reason to even accept the greenhouse analogy? I think I have a valid point that most people who accept Climate Change have no real scientific understanding themselves and are only believing what they have been told. This is a real problem when you add in the difficulties involving politics.

But, OK. It is good to see you around here again.

Your question contains a premise that I reject. I think they do have reason to accept the greenhouse analogy because carbon-enhanced greenhouses are a useful scale model for the atmospheric greenhouse effect. (In both systems, visible light comes in because CO2 is transparent to it. Stuff inside heats up and emits IR. IR can't get out because CO2 absorbs and re-emits it. So the inside heats up even more. You know how it goes.)

That aside, my answer is that I would show that person the data from surface-temperature measurements, from drill cores of antarctic ice containing enclosed air, which in turn give you a profile of CO2 concentrations over time, yadda yadda yadda. If that doesn't work, if the person proves impervious to evidence and logic, then I wouldn't convince them to accept the science. And I would grudgingly acquiesce in that.


That may well be true, but that doesn't change the fact that I want people to have believe things because evidence and logic compels them to. I disapprove of believing things simple because someone has told one to. The latter is just not a business I am interested in getting into.

I get this, and this is a powerful sentiment. I suspect that it is impractical though, modern life insists that we believe quite a bit about what we have been told.

I work on the seventh floor of a building that I believe is safe although I know nothing about the architecture. I give my daughter all of her vaccinations, I haven't read a single scientific study of the safety or efficacy of them (I trust that these studies exist). I take Tylenol trusting that it is safe... I don't know the biochemical mechanism nor have I taken the time to read the scientific trials.

I don't think it is possible to understand the science behind everything. And, most people don't have the luxury of a scientific education.

Believing what you are told is part of modern life... in fact you can't exist in modern societies without doing so.

Our societies are deeply segmented. Any advanced society must be, you can't possibly reach the level of expertise in every area that you can make judgments about what is valid or not.

How many people reading this post know anything about TCP/IP?

I'd be more interested in knowing who knows about IPX/SPX

The problem is that when someone believes something that is at odds with the scientific mainstream, they don't have the tools necessary to judge whether it is right or wrong.

Creationism comes with its own simplistic models and its own evidence. You have the advantage of science education, but without this people aren't going to know whether to trust radio-isotope dating... or understand geological formations or understand genetic mapping. Without doing the work to get an education (i.e. understand the experiments, data and math) the theory of evolution is no more intrinsically believable than intelligent design.

I don't have any particular education on evolution. I don't remember reading any research papers on the subject. I have never done any geological field work, nor have I ever sequenced genes. I have never worked with organisms. And yet I am certain that evolution is true.

My belief in evolution is based on reading second hand evidence people who have actually done the work reporting on what they found rather than me doing the work for myself. It all makes sense to me, but I haven't really taken the time to learn the actual science first hand. This was never my field of expertise.

I don't think there is any way around this. I am not sure if this is true about evolution for you... but I bet there are areas of science that you accept without having researched it for yourself.

I said TCP/IP because that is the protocol we are actually using right now... the point being you don't need to understand something to trust it (yeah, it isn't a very good point).

They all know by demonstration that it worked --- because if it hadn't worked, they wouldn't be reading your post. I consider that a good reason to believe that the engineers who designed TCP/IP knew what they were doing.

And you are the guy described perfectly by Thomas's second sentence, Max. Categorically refusing to look at evidence, logic and science.



That comes with a great deal of risk, especially when a person that has supposedly been educated to think, rejects thinking and holds out for information that is deeply suspect.

Completely false. I only need mention jury trials. A thing, which I believe you strong agree with.

Yeah, the TCP/IP quip wasn't a good example. My evolution example was better.

Most people form ideas about science based on political ideology rather than on having understood the science for themselves. Even many scientists do this for areas outside of their own field.

The most efficient way to run a society (in a hypothetical governmental system that isn't subject to the foibles of human nature) would be to get the smartest, most educated people together with access to all the the knowledge and resources available to make decisions based on science (and only science).

Of course this isn't possible, especially in a democracy.

My initial point (that got me into trouble) was that many liberals accept the science of Climate Change yet reject the science of GMOs... and yet say that conservatives are anti-science.

You're putting words on my screen: I didn't argue that a lack of 100% consensus, in and of itself, invalidates the consensus position. What I did argue and will continue to argue is that 97% consensus doesn't invalidate 3% dissent. Do you think otherwise?

BTW that's a cute but obvious trick casting scientists who question the climate change consensus in the same class as those who believe in perpetual motion and civilization on Mars. Ridicule is another political weapon.

Freeman Dyson is undeniably a scientist and quite an honored one at that. Richard Dawkins in lamenting what he perceived to be Dyson's endorsement of religion described him as " one of the world's most disntiguished physicists." I have been reading Dyson since before Time Magazine was telling us a new ice age would be upon us within several decades. My favorite of his books is "Disturbing the Universe" Given your education in physics, I imagine you are familiar with Dr. Dyson.

Dyson has frequently written on what many would consider the stuff of science fiction such as space exploration and bioengineered colonies in the Kuiper Belt (His paper published in the journal "Science" which described what has become known as the "Dyson Sphere" (An artificial structure or network of structures surrounding a sun that harnessed the star's energy and provided a habitat for the technologically advance species who engineered it) has given rise to what has been a standard prop in Sci-Fi stories for decades now. However his interest in such subjects hardly marks him as a kook and all of his theories and predictions are founded on accepted hard science.

Dyson is part of the supposed 3% of scientists who question or dispute certain aspects of the climate change consensus. Dyson doesn't dispute that the earth's climate is changing and the planet is growing warmer, but he contends that the modeling so heavily relied upon by consensus scientists is actually too unreliable to provide accurate predictions of future developments. He also believes that the dire predictions of many consensus scientists have been greatly exaggerated and to some extent because of the monetary and political incentives that exist with the profession of science. Finally he takes strong issue with the manner in which dissenting opinions have been treated. That he is something of a contrarian is, in part, why I was originally drawn to him and it's something of which he is hardly ashamed:





Now obviously Dyson could be completely wrong and the consensus completely right but if this is the case it won't be because the consensus consists of a lot more "scientists" than the group of heretics.

I don't profess to know the credentials of all of the heretics like Dyson, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find out and the folks whose writings on the subject that I've read all seem to fit the serious scientist bill and do not make regular appearances on the History Channel's "In Search of Alien Astronauts"

There is a wide range of heretical opinion among all the folks who have questions or difficulty with the consensus opinion on both this board and in wider circles and I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I think it's important to note this range and that a great many of the people who have been labelled "deniers" do not hold the position that the climate change orthodoxy is a sinister and elaborate hoax; thoroughly without merit. Still, too many of the supporters of the orthodoxy insist on lumping all of those who question it in the same bucket of deplorables (now where I have heard that image used before?), including the president of the Sierra Club who during his testimony before the Senate in which his only answer to any and all questions posed by Ted Cruz was:

"Senator I agree with 97% of the members of the scientific community who consider ACC settled science."

Cruz could have asked him the names of his kids and he would have given this answer. He also offered the unsolicited opinion that the entirety of the heretical 3% were on the payroll of big oil companies. Cruz didn't have the opportunity to challenge him on this outrageous claim, but if he did, I'm sure the guy would have given him the answer cited above, because I am equally sure that there is no evidence to support such a charge.

The reluctance of the heretics to embrace the orthodoxy seems to break down to several main issues:

The Accuracy of climate change data and projections based on modelling.

Whether observed climate change is due, primarily, to natural causes or human activity, and whether the primary cause is even identifiable.

The level and nature of the consequences of climate change.


I find it very difficult to believe anyone can be absolutely certain about any of these issues, but if they are they should be able to demonstrate why and how without resorting attacking heretics.

As for the claim of a 97% consensus I offer the following article. I would be interested in any counter-assertions you or others may have in regard to it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Sometime perfectly nice and pretty smart people putz around.

Would you like to rephrase your question with that in mind? I'm not sure what question you want me to answer, if any.


Are you referring to your first response to the initial post? That was a red herring, because the initial post had said nothing of the kind. About GMOs or climate change, I mean.

I agree with the point you make, Finn and will add that I would be of the same frame of mind if the numbers were 99.99% consensus and 0.01% dissent.



I also agree. [Is this a first?]

But I have to wonder, and therefore inquire, don't you and pretty much everyone else here, including some who suggest they are scientists and many others who say they believe in science and the scientific method, do exactly what you describe here as a wrong headed approach?

I already noted the distinction between the noun and verb form, Finn.

Thanks Finn, I just read the article and did a quick google of the the counter arguments. I think the National Review is cherry picking; choosing Meteorologists over Climate Scientists. The science isn't static, the evidence about climate change keeps coming in.... but we digress.

The important thing for any scientific issue; how do we as a society decide when the science is strong enough for us to act? Of course politics makes this even harder, but I think at some point we need scientific institutions that we can trust to tell us the science with as little bias as possible. The fact remains that I don't have training in climate science, nor the access to satellite data, nor the inclination to pour over the most recent research papers needed for me to make this judgment on my own.

It seems to me that AGW has reached the level of scientific consensus as much as possible given the political climate. I concede the point that the consensus about predicting the future and the validity of the models seems less certain.

At what point to do we decide this is settled science given that there is no issue where 100% of scientists agree?

That is unscientific, Max. Just pointing to one Einstein, one Tesla, the ones Thomas pointed to [that's five or six] should tell you that.

spent my day in Baltimore at a science education discussion among a working group of practicing applied geologists.

Youve come to a point that is counter to fact. tachers ALREADY tell students about the HISTORY of beliefs and what it was like among "naturl philosophers" before the word scientist was used as a profession. Teaching such beliefs as history and how science developed its evidence through Darwin's observations and conclusions, is usually encouraged(Im hoping that its at least 60% of schools science classes).Its more a matter of whether the teachers are confident and savvy enough to do the explanations (so they dont sound like your Chem teacher.Although I cannot guarantee). I used to teach several summer NSF workshops for bio and earth science teachers about that very discussion and how to help teachers spend time on it without appearing that they are "ducking the issues"

The counter point is that there are now groups of religious based organizations and "Institutes" that dont WANT evolution to be taught since it is "GODLESS and MINDLESS" and free of belief in an overall designer.
From about 150 to about 80 years ago Schools were , in the US forbidden to mention evolution until the weight of facts and evidence were undeniably breaking the back of "Creationism". Most of that was the work of paleontologists who recognized similarities and differences among fossil species separated by time. This begat the famous "Bone Wars" in the US West where the scientists of the Yale museum and the US (then) national repository of natural sp ecimens (later to become the Smithsonin Ntionl Naturl Hitory Museum) were in deadly combat for specimen sites with the staff of the Phildelphia Academy of Nat SCiences . The bone wars yielded specimens that were full evidence of disruptive natural selection in several fossil dinosaur "species". This began a huge parade of evidence that grew from work in the UK, Canada, and the US
As the evidence piled up further, the culture wars between the nascent science of paleontology and evolutionary biology and the Christian Clerical estblishment began heating up. (As a hobby I collect these "Creation driven" texts of the late 1800's and into the 1920's that deal with "Biblical Geology" "Civic Biology" and several other "texts" that purported to be science as decreed by witnesses to God's hand ywork.). Instead of being truth centered an scientific
these texts were loaded with racist and garbage beliefs that were "anti-scientific" outgrowths of the RECONSTRUCTION period that were drawn with a pupose to tread on the african-americans who were still being mistreated. The detailed structural breakdown of Genesis was accomplished by folks , like G M Price and the early leaders of many Protestant sects. These many text authors kept any scientific evidence deep in the background .
Why didnt the Constitutional boundaries provide any help we ask?

The opinions of many science historians is that after the turn of the 20th century (as set down by the first gilded age that needed cheap labor and the racism associated with Reconstruction) there were active "anti-modernism movements".These were the rule of the day and anti- evolution, just like the lack of universal suffrage, Jim Crow laws, Butler Acts, lynching etc etc, were all carried out pretty much in the open(mostly by SOuthern Democrats and gilded age Republicans). This is a fair summary , and (as Ive stated in another thred) I maintain that anti science usually underpins denial and misinterpretrations of history.

In summary, we do already encourage the discussions of Creationism and modern ID in science classes, mostly as examples of what people believed at one time or another and how (AND WHY) such mythopoeic
based worldviews were gradually swept under the rug by virtue of masses of evidence that support the understandable theory of Darwin.


True dat. Yet the science and evidence supporting evolution is surprisingly easy to understand by almost anyone who takes the time to do the homework. Its "Not rocket surgery" as Homer once said.

Since Im a recent climate change convert (based upon several Penns State climate papers) Im keeping a low rofile on this because of the politics involved. I used to be one who denied that humans had a measurable effect on the globes warming trend.
My understanding has been a journey of my own reading of what each side had to offer and Ive come down on the side that mans footprint is measurable and significant (Its not the only thing because of specific geodynamic and hydrologic based climate cycles ).