Poll: Is climate change real?
Yes but human contribution is negligible
Yes and humans are part of it in a significant way
No. It's a conspiracy
No. God told me
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Climate denialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: Climate denialism
Do you ever wonder how often the word “denial” has been used in the history of science? Before World War II, it would not have been used in the current context, so I do not think there are many examples. Climate has brought out some interesting behavior on the part of logical, objective, scientific free thinkers.

My background was in response to all the advanced degrees earned by fear mongers like Tyson. It was not that long ago that government sponsored fear mongers were priests. It is nice to have some common ground with my fellow skeptics.

For some reason, we do not share common ground with respect to the secular fear of saccharine, animal fat and carbon dioxide. Well, I think the reason is simple: government support, just like people had to endure with the Roman Catholic Church.

We are not talking about pollution, which humans can reverse.

Like Tyson, I use a geological time scale, but for Earth’s history of 4.5 billion years. Over the last second (140 years), the human species has put civilization in peril. After the 1st second of the New Year (2154), the planet is doomed from the human release of a brand new pollutant/toxin to the atmosphere.

Skepticism must be the default reaction to fear, be it secular or religious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(20-08-2014 03:12 PM)Walter Wrote:  Do you ever wonder how often the word “denial” has been used in the history of science? Before World War II, it would not have been used in the current context, so I do not think there are many examples. Climate has brought out some interesting behavior on the part of logical, objective, scientific free thinkers.

My background was in response to all the advanced degrees earned by fear mongers like Tyson. It was not that long ago that government sponsored fear mongers were priests. It is nice to have some common ground with my fellow skeptics.

For some reason, we do not share common ground with respect to the secular fear of saccharine, animal fat and carbon dioxide. Well, I think the reason is simple: government support, just like people had to endure with the Roman Catholic Church.

We are not talking about pollution, which humans can reverse.

Like Tyson, I use a geological time scale, but for Earth’s history of 4.5 billion years. Over the last second (140 years), the human species has put civilization in peril. After the 1st second of the New Year (2154), the planet is doomed from the human release of a brand new pollutant/toxin to the atmosphere.

Skepticism must be the default reaction to fear, be it secular or religious.

The word 'denialism' has been used before the climate discussion; for evolution and AIDS just off the top of my head.

Your argument fails.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-08-2014, 03:41 PM
Re: RE: Climate denialism
(20-08-2014 03:12 PM)Walter Wrote:  Do you ever wonder how often the word “denial” has been used in the history of science? Before World War II, it would not have been used in the current context, so I do not think there are many examples. Climate has brought out some interesting behavior on the part of logical, objective, scientific free thinkers.

My background was in response to all the advanced degrees earned by fear mongers like Tyson. It was not that long ago that government sponsored fear mongers were priests. It is nice to have some common ground with my fellow skeptics.

For some reason, we do not share common ground with respect to the secular fear of saccharine, animal fat and carbon dioxide. Well, I think the reason is simple: government support, just like people had to endure with the Roman Catholic Church.

We are not talking about pollution, which humans can reverse.

Like Tyson, I use a geological time scale, but for Earth’s history of 4.5 billion years. Over the last second (140 years), the human species has put civilization in peril. After the 1st second of the New Year (2154), the planet is doomed from the human release of a brand new pollutant/toxin to the atmosphere.

Skepticism must be the default reaction to fear, be it secular or religious.
So....about responding to my posts about the global carbon cycle...

And I'm aware of the geologic timescale and geologic processes. I'm very well acquainted with them, and they don't indicate that organisms can't effect climate change.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
20-08-2014, 04:03 PM
Re: RE: Climate denialism
(20-08-2014 03:12 PM)Walter Wrote:  Do you ever wonder how often the word “denial” has been used in the history of science? Before World War II, it would not have been used in the current context, so I do not think there are many examples. Climate has brought out some interesting behavior on the part of logical, objective, scientific free thinkers.

My background was in response to all the advanced degrees earned by fear mongers like Tyson. It was not that long ago that government sponsored fear mongers were priests. It is nice to have some common ground with my fellow skeptics.

For some reason, we do not share common ground with respect to the secular fear of saccharine, animal fat and carbon dioxide. Well, I think the reason is simple: government support, just like people had to endure with the Roman Catholic Church.

We are not talking about pollution, which humans can reverse.

Like Tyson, I use a geological time scale, but for Earth’s history of 4.5 billion years. Over the last second (140 years), the human species has put civilization in peril. After the 1st second of the New Year (2154), the planet is doomed from the human release of a brand new pollutant/toxin to the atmosphere.

Skepticism must be the default reaction to fear, be it secular or religious.
And what fear is there in facts about climate change influenced and enhanced by human activity?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(20-08-2014 03:12 PM)Walter Wrote:  My background was in response to all the advanced degrees earned by fear mongers like Tyson. It was not that long ago that government sponsored fear mongers were priests. It is nice to have some common ground with my fellow skeptics.

For some reason, we do not share common ground with respect to the secular fear of saccharine, animal fat and carbon dioxide. Well, I think the reason is simple: government support, just like people had to endure with the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you think all climate science is fake? Or just parts of it?

Do you think all governments everwhere are in on it? The very same governments which have refused to take substantive action to actually address the issue?

If that's a conspiracy, it's a pretty nonsensical one.

(20-08-2014 03:12 PM)Walter Wrote:  Like Tyson, I use a geological time scale, but for Earth’s history of 4.5 billion years. Over the last second (140 years), the human species has put civilization in peril. After the 1st second of the New Year (2154), the planet is doomed from the human release of a brand new pollutant/toxin to the atmosphere.

"The Earth is old, therefore things can't happen quickly".

WUT

THE

NONSENSE?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(20-08-2014 04:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 03:12 PM)Walter Wrote:  My background was in response to all the advanced degrees earned by fear mongers like Tyson. It was not that long ago that government sponsored fear mongers were priests. It is nice to have some common ground with my fellow skeptics.

For some reason, we do not share common ground with respect to the secular fear of saccharine, animal fat and carbon dioxide. Well, I think the reason is simple: government support, just like people had to endure with the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you think all climate science is fake? Or just parts of it?

Do you think all governments everwhere are in on it? The very same governments which have refused to take substantive action to actually address the issue?

If that's a conspiracy, it's a pretty nonsensical one.

That was an incredibly lame response...

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: Climate denialism
(20-08-2014 04:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 04:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you think all climate science is fake? Or just parts of it?

Do you think all governments everwhere are in on it? The very same governments which have refused to take substantive action to actually address the issue?

If that's a conspiracy, it's a pretty nonsensical one.

That was an incredibly lame response...

Why do you think the response is lame?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: Climate denialism
(21-08-2014 06:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 04:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  That was an incredibly lame response...

Why do you think the response is lame?

He thinks everything but Sye Ten's cock is lame.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
21-08-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: Climate denialism
(21-08-2014 08:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why do you think the response is lame?

He thinks everything but Sye Ten's cock is lame.

Drinking Beverage

Unneeded visual is unneeded. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-08-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: Climate denialism
I have been observing science fraud (today, confirmation bias) for just over 40 years now. A big reason I am skeptical of carbon dioxide fear mongering is the history of animal fat fear mongering. The same scientific community we are supposed to trust today started an experiment back in the 1950s to promote fear of animal fat. Congress put its stamp of approval on this confirmation bias in the 1970s, with the entire population of the United States being used as non-consenting participants.

This pseudo-science or confirmation bias (personally, I would use the F word) is still going on today. If any sentence about science deserves an exclamation point, it was that last one. Just take a look at the USDA’s MyPlate. Fat is not on the plate.

One might wish, hope or pray that climate science is different, but it is the same community represented by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Why do you think I should trust the same community which continues this fat experiment started some 60 years ago? I just thank Jesus that my mother, the housewife, was anti-science and ignored my community. Today, she would be described by rationalists as an anti-science Republican. What I loved about her anti-science, skeptical attitude was when I visited, the butter, cream, ½ & ½ , whole milk, bacon, sausage, eggs, chicken leg quarters, pepperoni, cheese, suet draped roasts and French silk chocolate pie (butter, raw eggs, lard laden crust) were still being served. She was a great example of being skeptical while scientists were attempting to frighten her. In a way, she just put her middle finger up to the science community. She did not have a degree in nutrition science, so she really had no business questioning the science. She also had the support of her anti-science Republican husband, the mathematician / electrical engineer.

What did happen is that many citizens, unlike my mother, trusted that scientific community and took too much fat off the table. It was replaced with solid vegetable oils, sugar laden dressings, fat free milk and skinless, boneless chicken breast fillets (Yum!). The results of that fat removal have not been all that great.

It is far too late for an apology from the scientific community for the fear mongering started 60 years ago. And I think that is a big reason that they cannot even stop the experiment.

Does this concern any rationalists or atheists at all? Do you really think the climate community differs from the nutrition community? They both fit under the science community, just like physics and chemistry. My two sisters, who also dismiss the nutrition community, try their best to convince me to trust the climate one. I tell them I like to be consistent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: