71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 08:13 pm
@parados,
Quote:
FYI. Earth has 2 poles. One is covered with land and the other isn't. Maybe we should start with what most first graders know when we talk to you.
And that is the extent of your scientific knowledge . Thanks for trying so very very hard .
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 10:00 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Denialism.jpg
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 10:07 pm
@FBM,
Somebody left their balls at home. That should read "How willful purposeful irrational thinking hinders ...."
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 10:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Empty rhetoric is empty.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 12:19 am
@FBM,
I dont suppose you stopped to consider that denialism is the basis of science ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 01:00 am
@Ionus,
Fortunately, Ionus, you are the shining example of someone not denying any for you uncomfortable truth.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 11:14 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
I dont suppose you stopped to consider that denialism is the basis of science



skepticism and denial are totally different concepts QUAHOG is an example of "denialism" he has no clue about anything.
Gunga is a skeptic (hes , at least got some alternative worldviews)
His data is all fucked up but he, at least knows the bases of evidence and he tries to counter others with his on evidence.
His "evidence" can be debunked or may not even be falsified. Quahog is just a moron whose head is whistlng in the wind.

DENIALISM v SKEPTICISM.

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 05:09 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Deniers are not Skeptics

December 5, 2014
Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.

image of earth melting
As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”

As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.

We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.


Mark Boslough, Physicist

David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute

Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society

Ann Druyan, Writer/producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios

Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer

Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)

Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry

Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University

Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London

Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University

Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College

Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University

Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University

Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University

James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation

Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research

Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France

Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK

Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast

David J. Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University

Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City

Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist, Past President, International Council for Science

Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International

Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired

Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer

Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine

David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician

Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus

David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine

Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz

Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands

Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth

Ken Feder, Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University

Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute

Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee, Producer - The Skeptic Zone Podcast

Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College

Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University

Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University

Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA

James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada

Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy

E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory

Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia

Thomas R. Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development, LLC

Willem Betz, MD, Professor of Medicine, Univ. of Brussels

Steven Novella, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Yale Univ. School of Medicine

Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University emeritus


http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 06:21 pm
@farmerman,
I consider myself a skeptic in that I am aware of the vast amounts of data that support the conclusion that the climate is warming and rapidly. Im still not 100% "buying that its primarily a man caused thing. There are too many natural cycles (and at least two of them are in action now).
So the Carl Sagan reminder kicks in . I think most people are on one side or another without knowing why
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 06:28 pm
@farmerman,
I'm in pretty much the same boat. It's hard to deny the empirical data for the rising temps and still be intellectually honest. The anthropogenic claim is a bit harder to prove, and it's wise to reserve a healthy dose of skepticism about it. But that sure looks like the way things are pointing at the moment.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Quote:
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agreeMultiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 07:00 pm
@FBM,
84% of Earth SCientists accept mn induced climate change. I guess Im one of the 16%.

Ive never really made up my mind by first reading a poll. Ive asked questions at seminars up at Penn State about Daansgard cycles and Ive never had good answers by scientists. (Ive had answers from places like A2K, but unless I can stare someones experience in the face, Im skeptical)


FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 07:03 pm
@farmerman,
I wouldn't blame someone for suspending judgment pending further investigation, but are you saying that there is definitely no man-made climate change?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 07:05 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities


they should wake me when they know. THough that information will not be of much help. They can get me again when they have a tested an approved plan for dealing with climate change. However since it is a very good bet that I will be dead before they figure it out I will carry on without letting this subject take up head space.
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 08:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
is a very good bet that I will be dead before they figure it out I will carry on without letting this subject take up head space.

Not overly fond of your kids then?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 08:59 pm
@farmerman,
How many truly great and revolutionary steps in science have been denied by the establishment ? Skepticism is awaiting proof . Denialism is where people have spent their lives being brainwashed that their science is correct and refuse to accept new science even with skepticism .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 09:01 pm
@hingehead,
So if one is fond of their kids they MUST believe in Global Warming ? Are you another Thuggee ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 09:05 pm
@farmerman,
I have a friend who has a ScD (as opposed to a PhD - for those who dont know the difference, Google) and he spent his life doing research into weather and climate . He says it is a guess .
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 03:20 am
@farmerman,
I'm impressed, FM. Always wise to keep an open mind on something like this.

But I suspect we agree that at least the people backing the notion that human activity is adding to the problem are still asking the scientific community for more investigation and more opinions...while the other side is being irrationally and illogically dismissive of the idea.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 05:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
I'm on the other side, Frank . Am I being irrationally and illogically dismissive of the idea ?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 07:18 am
@Ionus,
A lot less than the science that has been denied by the ignorant masses. Denialism is refusing to accept science when they have the evidence and you don't.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:11:33