Science Deniers are Everywhere

Give a "scientist" like you the facts, and you flee, Max, steadfastly refusing to even acknowledge those facts.

I am truly amazed at the stunning hypocrisy, the cognitive dissonance that you "scientists" are illustrating here in such abundant fashion. Your behavior is something out of the Twilight Zone.

What are you trying to say here?

McGentrix, like you, Max, Olivier, farmerman, there is little difference, you are all the same, are trying to place as much diversionary material out there as you possibly can to divert attention away from your science denial proclivities.

I'll grant you that the spectrometer alone is not enough. It also takes a high-school-level textbook chapter on spectroscopy and a manual for the spectrometer. Other than that, I do not share your low esteem of normal persons. Any sufficiently-curious 10th-grader could find out independently that CO2 transmits visible light, absorbs infrared light, and thereby traps heat.

This insight does not require a science degree. It might take a level of curiosity that most people don't have, but this notion of yours, that faith in the academy is the only thing that can realistically establish this, strikes me as absurd.

The article wasn't written to address claims about climate change but to address the claim that 97% of scientists agree with it. It's a specious claim based on sketchy methodology intended not to arrive at the accurate answer to a legitimate question but to develop ammunition for propaganda. It's the perfect example of what scientists should never do: start with a conclusion and then search for the way to prove it.

I've been dealing with business result statistics for 40 years and I know how easy it is to manipulate them in ways that can be rationalized but still produce the desired outcome. I also know how hard it is to resist doing so and why people succumb to the temptation. I can recognize how and when it is being done and it was done to arrive at the 97% claims.

It's the sort of stupid stunt that leads autocrats to report that they have received 99% of the votes in a clearly rigged election.

I've no real doubt that the believers outnumber the heretics, and I'm certainly not trying to claim that the consensus opinion is not what the believers say it is, but this flawed assertion of 97% is just another example of how believers will (wittingly or otherwise) stray from the path they insist is what leads everyone to their conclusion.

Whether the motivation is benign, sinister or a blend of both it rightly raises questions about their underlying premise and so it is self-defeating.

Everyone has seen hundreds if not thousands of examples of this sort of manipulation of facts, and while they may not believe such a thing was at work here, the notion that scientists are immune from such manipulation is incredible.

I only care about this debate in terms of the proposed response and that is not one that will not be decided upon (at least in democratic nations) by the consensus of scientists but the consensus of citizens. There isn't a magic number of scientists who agree with the orthodoxy that will trigger any action.

It didn't take a consensus of scientists to convince the American people that throwing garbage out of their car windows was turning our highways into trash dumps or pumping pollutants into rivers that rendered them sterile and capable of catching fire was not a very smart idea. Clearly, climate change alarmists believe that if we wait until the effects of the problem are this obvious, it will be too late to do anything about them, but that's the way humans operate, and they do so in part, because resisting dire warnings of things yet to happen has not bitten them in their collective ass every single time they have done so. Skepticism and minority viewpoints have, over the years, likely saved people from all sorts of folly. This case may be the time that they doom us, but clearly the people of America and, at least, a fair number of world leaders don't think that is the case.

At least in this country, groups don't get to say we don't give a damn about minority viewpoints, we think the matter is settled and we're acting on it. They don't get to do this even when they represent the majority which they clearly don't or the country would have already implemented policies that are accordance with their wishes. Polls may say that a majority of Americans believe climate change is real and that it is a problem (I really don't know if this is true or not), but I'm sure they don't say they agree that it is such a problem that truly drastic measures must be taken now, including economic actions that will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. HRC's vow to put coal miners out of work wasn't the only incredibly stupid comment she made and it alone didn't cost her the election, but it provided a demonstration of the public reaction to the sort of proposals we are told must be enacted if we are to save the planet.

People will wait until the last second to jump from a sinking ship or burning building and absent a calamity they're not likely to do so based on the consensus among any experts that at some future date the ship will founder or the building burn.

True believers who are convinced that the threat is extreme and very real and the time to act is now would be better served by devoting their energies to developing a communication strategy that convinces the people who will form the only meaningful consensus that they are correct, and misguided efforts to fudge rather than explain inconvenient facts or to silence rather than prove wrong skeptics is hurting, not helping their efforts.

Pointing fingers again. You have described yourself, Finn, you are describing your many posts here at A2K. You reveal your stunning hypocrisy time and again. You make a case for your 3%, a valid case, yet you happily, gleefully engage in the same behavior you accuse the 97percenters of doing.

You are largely preaching to the choir.

To the extent that schools already address Creationism as I've suggested, that's great, and to the extent that anyone is attempting to rid schools of the teaching of evolution, I vehemently oppose it.

Of course addressing alternative theories in a rational way and ridiculing them are two different things, and I've no doubt the latter is taking place in schools throughout the nation.

You guys can't open your mouths without revealing just how incredibly hypocritical you are, Finn.

That's what happens when you lie and you all get shovels to dig yourselves deeper. It's inevitable.

That is you and all the rest of the pretenders here. And your next post, and farmerman's next post, and {___'s} next post will do the same.

You know, you've repeatedly made your point about me and those like me being dupes or co-conspirators in the big oil conspiracy to sabotage the holy mission of righteous crusaders such as yourself and enjoy their last few glasses of 15 year old single malt and Cuban cigars while the world burns.

That it's insulting is of no import, but that it is exceedingly tiresome prompts me to ask you if, from now on, this is going to be your standard response to anything I post on this subject?

If so, I would like to break from the patterned behavior of humans who wait until a catastrophe befalls them before acting and put you on ignore before you bore me to death.

I told you, Finn, your next post would be more stunning hypocrisy. And the threat of ignore, wooooooo wooooo, you have childishly played this game myriad times.

It's hypocritical that you even suggest it, but what's new about you and hypocrisy.

That such a feature even exists on an AMERICAN website, where adults, supposedly, gather to discuss things, is amazing and hypocritical.

Is the ignore feature soon to be found in court rooms across the US. It's already a standard feature in other realms of US "government".

I love you too, Finn.

Why do you think you believe what you believe? We're all influenced by all sorts of people. Think about who might have influenced you on this topic, shaped your feelings or informed your viewpoint. If you can come up with an answer that doesn't include Fox News and the dozen of "think"-tanks funded by the Koch brothers, I'd love to know.

Come on, Olivier. Accusing others of being duped when you fall into the same category is hypocritical.

The new Finn schtick is the same one that georgeob1 makes good use of. Bafflegab all shined up.

You might love to know, but I feel no compulsion to run through a catalog of what I have read and heard on this topic that has formed my opinions.

Suffice it to say I feel comfortable with the breadth and depth of the information upon which I have relied thus far. I'm always open to new information, but I don't think there's not much of a chance of getting that from you.

Outright fabrication.

I think the article is simply wrong.

The question I am raising in both my conversation with you, and my conversation with Thomas (which are both interesting) is about the concept of scientific consensus.

It seems quite clear to me that in the issue of Global warming there is a scientific consensus that

1) Human activity is changing the climate in measurable ways.
2) This is an important problem that demands a response.

I agree with people who point out that there is no scientific consensus on the future activity of the climate, or the severity of the problem. That is a confusing issue, but that that is tangential to my point.

I think the article you cite is wrong (it is a conservative spin that ignores the fact that the vast majority of scientists all agree on AGW). But let me ask the question...

If you were convinced that there was a scientific consensus on Global Warming, how would it change your political position? Would you change your mind about things like the Paris Agreement and Carbon taxes? Or is the question of scientific consensus really moot. I would like to think that our beliefs as a society are informed by scientific consensus. I realize there is a decent chance I may be naive.

The scientific community is certainly making the effort to communicate their concerns about climate change. They are making public statements, and speaking out in ways that they have rarely done before. Your arguments that science has been wrong before are invalid because of this... it has been rare that scientists have spoken out in a way that was so certain and so concerned.

I don't know what more the scientific community can do on this issue.

On a few issues that would be true. On the issues of greatest importance, the beliefs of US society has had the science hidden and the propaganda full on.

Just like Pearl Harbor/Gulf of Tonkin. We all know this from the horrendous results, from all the lies that have seen the murder of millions.

We all know this from the deafening silence from everyone except the attack dogs.

On this you are not simply naive, Max, you are studiously maintaining a forced ignorant, hiding yourself from reality. The very opposite of science.

You speak of a scientific consensus concerning the issue of manmade global warming. I'm just curious about the source of your claim. Could you provide something to substantiate it? I'm just curious.

You can check the statements from any reputable scientific organization. The American Physical Society, NSA, Scientific American.... take your pick. The voice of the vast majority of scientists and all of the scientific institutions is pretty united on the topic.

So, how many scientists are you talking? Just a ballpark figure will do.