Science Deniers are Everywhere

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
What you've done here is exaggerate a thing to comedic levels. Scientists and doomsday events do not have a stellar record.

What are you trying to say here?

That scientists do not have a good track record for predicting doom and gloom.
1) Global Cooling
2) Overpopulation
3) Mass Starvation
4) Resource Depletion
5) Mass Extinction
6) Renewable Energy
7) Global Warming

DO you disagree that when these were all in the news they had the full weight of science behind them?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

That scientists do not have a good track record for predicting doom and gloom.
1) Global Cooling
2) Overpopulation
3) Mass Starvation
4) Resource Depletion
5) Mass Extinction
6) Renewable Energy
7) Global Warming

DO you disagree that when these were all in the news they had the full weight of science behind them?

I absolutely disagree that these had the full weight of science behind them. You are setting up a false narrative.

With global warming, you now have unequivocal statements from all of the reputable scientific organizations. Show me where that has ever happened for any of the issues on your list.

There is a big difference between hype of the popular press, and the weight of the scientific community. The APS and NASA have put out strong statements about global climate change. If you can show me equivalent statements from the APS, or NASA on any of these other issues, then I will admit you have a point. I have given you a simple, objective test for whether there has been a scientific consensus on any of these issues... so have at it.

I think you are setting up a false equivalency. Science doesn't often reach a scientific consensus (and many times the press has run away with something that wasn't a scientific consensus). But when the scientific community has reached a consensus, it has a very good track record of being correct.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I absolutely disagree that these had the full weight of science behind them.

Ok, so? You are welcome to disagree all day long. Doesn't change the facts.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

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

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Ok, so? You are welcome to disagree all day long. Doesn't change the facts.

It doesn't change the facts. Which you seem to be neither defending nor disputing.

There is a difference between a scientific consensus (i.e. global climate change now) and a brief furor in the popular press without broad support from the scientific community (i.e. overpopulation).

You are making a false equivalency. That is the facts.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You can check the statements from any reputable scientific organization.

Why is it that a science guy makes claims and expects others to do his research.

Quote:

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.

Take YOUR pick, Max, and for once do your own research. Why are you always so frightened?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Tom Tripp has been a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2004, and is listed as one of the lead authors.

He says: “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

NASA scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein worked thirty-five years at NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist, and is now a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

He says: “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You have yet to define what "broad consensus" means. Are there specific groups that make the consensus?

brief furor in the popular press?

Quote:

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I checked the guy up and it turns out Tom Tripp is a mining engineer who presented a paper once to the IPPC, on the carbon footprint of magnesium minning. The guy is not a climatoligist and knows nothing about climate.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

That scientists do not have a good track record for predicting doom and gloom.

They got Nagazaki and Hiroshima right.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Feeling confortable in their ignorance is what ignorants do.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix,

Did you read my posts? I very carefully defined broad scientific consensus (a couple of times). The track record for the scientific community in times when they have reached such a scientific consensus is excellent.

Your examples to show that science can't be trusted are bogus. They aren't examples of a broad scientific consensus. What you are giving me is a press report saying that some individual scientists are worried about something. There are no statements from scientific institutions about the issues on your list. Nor is there the body of published scientific papers, or the unified opinion of the vast majority of scientists.

In a broad scientific consensus, the most reputable scientific institutions publish strongly worded, unequivocal statements stating that the scientific evidence warrants a societal response. That is what is happening with global warming; the American Physics Society, NASA, American Chemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc. etc. all have strongly worded statements stating that the evidence supports this conclusion.

I don't know how the scientific community could be more clear? In addition to the strong statements about their conclusion that the evidence is in that are written for the public, there are also a large, growing body of work in the form of scientific peer reviewed papers confirming the evidence of the existance of AGW.

If this doesn't convince you of the view of the scientific community (representing almost all of our best experts on the issue), I don't know what will. And maybe that is the question.

Individual scientists have been wrong. That makes sense, science is a collaborative effort that is designed to allow dissent as long as the evidence supports it. But Science also provides a way to reach a conclusion.

The scientific community, once it has reached the point where there is a broad scientific consensus, is almost always right.

What does the scientific community have to do to convince you?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Your examples to show that science can't be trusted are bogus.

You are not following my point, my fault most likely.

I'm not saying, suggesting or inferring that science can't be trusted. I love science. I have a science degree and I've almost had to use it. I'm not even disagreeing that your vague definition of what we are discussing here is wrong. I have no doubt in my mind at all that human activity has increased the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and we should be mindful of that.

What I am saying, suggesting and inferring is that people of science have made bold predictions about environmental disasters in the past and have been wrong. I am also saying that I do not believe that elevated CO2 levels in our atmosphere are necessarily a precursor to disaster and the end of the world.

That's my problem with global warming fanatics. The dire predictions of the end of the world. Look back at my peak oil discussion with Farmerman. When given a problem of vital concern, humans found a solution. Science made advancements and scientists did their thing.

Remember the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica and how that was the beginning of the end of humanity? Yeah, we made advances in science, scientists did their thing and now that hole is not much of a concern.

I can find several records about each item on the list I made where scientists back up the information. Can you find any from major science organizations disputing them from that same time period?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

William Gilbert is a Research Chemist who published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere.” He also published a paper titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”

He says: “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

Dr. Hans Jelbring is a Swedish Climatologist at the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

He says: “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

Dr. John Reid is an Atmospheric Physicist who worked with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization's Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

He says: “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote:

The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.

...

Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years.[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth’s climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.

This is the statement by the AAAS, there are similarly strong statements by all of the major scientific organization. This is not a few scientists pushing opinions in the press.

This is a scientific consensus. And, historically, when science reaches this type of scientific consensus, they are almost always shown to be correct. This has been true for the past century (or two).

You are confusing two different situations. Your examples aren't examples of scientific consensus.

I think I understand your points. Sometimes some scientists have said things, even things that have been picked up by popular press, that turned out to be untrue. This is irrelevant. That isn't what is happening here.

I also agree with you, if you are pointing that some of the things being said about global climate, particularly the dire predictions, are not supported by the scientific consensus. You should look at what these carefully worded statements are saying (and better yet, look at what the peer reviewed papers are saying... but this is more difficult without a scientific background). And go no further.

But this is clear

There is a scientific consensus that there is measurable climate change that is caused by human use of fossil fuels and presents a significant concern to human societies.

And this type of scientific consensus has been proven to be quite accurate. Once scientists go through the process of experiments and research and articles, they have an excellent track record of being correct.

That is why I think in this case, we as a society should listen to what the scientists are telling us.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

If there is 97% agreement from scientists working in the field, that leaves 3% to dissent. I don't think you are actually reading peer reviewed papers... you seem to be googling for people who agree with you. There are credentialed scientists on the internet who believe in UFOs and ESP. That says more about the internet than it does about science.

But focusing on the 3% doesn't discredit the consensus reached by the vast majority of scientists actually working in the field.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Link?

Also, what do these guys actually think re global warming? As opposed to what they're quoted as saying about some colleague or another. Your second guy for instance seems to be totally in agreement with the idea that CO2 forces temperatures up...

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I actually think that its moe in the order or 0.3% not 3% of scientists that object or disagree with the CAUSES of Global Warming. We gt to read the same guys over and over again who preach to the base . There is even a smaller minority that do NOT accept climate change or Global Warming.

Its like the same guys (like Steve Jones) who, over and over and over, print up self published crap about 9/11 that the conspiracy yahoos claim is "Scientific fact"

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

From your post: . . . scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.

That sounds like the insertion of plausible deniability. Kind of neuters the content preceding it.

Link me to some of the studies that concluded that global warning is gonna get us.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Whether it's gona "get us" or not depends on what we do about it. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? It could well have fried all the aussies, but nations of the world united to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting gazes, and saved you guys' ass.

Maybe we shouldn't have...

1 Reply

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know