Why do you think people deny science?

[Padawanbater2]

I think the answer to why people deny science is pretty obvious; because the answers that science provides either makes them uncomfortable or contradicts their preconceived worldviews. The answer to the question of what we should do about it is much more complicated..

It seems we're in somewhat of a difficult spot.. the scientifically minded among us who understand what science is, how it works and how it's applied are labeled "bullies" when they state scientific facts that contradict, more often than not, traditional or religious beliefs, when nobody in their right mind would label a mathematician a "bully" for saying 2+2=4..

How do you think we should treat these people?

IMO, they should be publicly shamed, no different than holocaust or climate change deniers

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

Maybe treat them as Gods for their hypothesis?

"Some of the brightest minds in the world gathered at Smithsonian's "The Future is Here" conference to discuss the great triumphs and future innovations in science and technology"

 

[Commander Strax]

 

[Dr Kynes]

I think the answer to why people deny science is pretty obvious; because the answers that science provides either makes them uncomfortable or contradicts their preconceived worldviews. The answer to the question of what we should do about it is much more complicated..

It seems we're in somewhat of a difficult spot.. the scientifically minded among us who understand what science is, how it works and how it's applied are labeled "bullies" when they state scientific facts that contradict, more often than not, traditional or religious beliefs, when nobody in their right mind would label a mathematician a "bully" for saying 2+2=4..

How do you think we should treat these people?

IMO, they should be publicly shamed, no different than holocaust or climate change deniers

perhaps that's the reason YOU deny science, perhaps you should be publicly shamed for asserting that historical and paleontological FACTS, like the existence of non-anthropogenic ice ages, warm periods, mass extinctions, climate change and (presumably) plate tectonics simply dont exist, as well as refusing to accept the reality of dinosaurs, sabertooth cats, and woolly mammoths.

 

[Padawanbater2]

perhaps that's the reason YOU deny science, perhaps you should be publicly shamed for asserting that historical and paleontological FACTS, like the existence of non-anthropogenic ice ages, warm periods, mass extinctions, climate change and (presumably) plate tectonics simply dont exist, as well as refusing to accept the reality of dinosaurs, sabertooth cats, and woolly mammoths.

For someone your age, you've sure got a lot of growing up to do Kynes

-------

Another aspect of science denial is political affiliation. Generally speaking, conservatives and right leaning people are traditionally more against scientific progress than liberals and left leaning people. That's no big secret, but it is the elephant in the room people(conservatives) don't like to talk about. Science is viewed as the enemy to a lot of conservatives, it's even expressed on a daily basis on the politics section of RIU. The arguments always stem from the denial of facts not reason or logic.

 

[Dr Kynes]

For someone your age, you've sure got a lot of growing up to do Kynes

i need to "grow up" because you deny the existence of ice ages, the milencovic cycle, dinosaurs, megafauna, and non-anthropogenic climate change throughout history?

or did you just discover that your position is untenable so you need to find a way to distract from your own scientific illiteracy?

it seems children really like dinosaurs...
perhaps you need a little kid to fill you in on the whole dinosaur thing.

 

[heckler73]

Once again, the irony...

 

[Padawanbater2]

People can't argue with science, just like people can't argue with mathematics, so when something is discovered in science that contradicts someone's religious beliefs or worldview, they have to make a choice; either reject what is discovered and hold onto their worldview or accept it and examine their beliefs. This is what separates the scientifically minded from the scientifically illiterate

 

[Dr Kynes]

People can't argue with science, just like people can't argue with mathematics, so when something is discovered in science that contradicts someone's religious beliefs or worldview, they have to make a choice; either reject what is discovered and hold onto their worldview or accept it and examine their beliefs. This is what separates the scientifically minded from the scientifically illiterate

you mean like the "theory" that fossilized bones found deep in the earth are the mineralized bones of giant reptilian critters that lived on the earth before some totally non-anthropogenic climate change wiped em out?

or that the giant feline and pachyderm bones found in the la brea tar pits are the oil soaked remains of huge critters that stalked the earth before some MORE non-anthropogenic climate change wiped them out too?

or the "Theory" that the minoan civilization thrived in an unusually war part of this epoch, as did the romans, as did europe in the period known as "The Enlightenment", but each of these periods was separated from the others by some totally non-anthropogenic cooler periods, before it totally non-anthropogenically warmed up again?

yeah some people just cant accept that these things happened so they make up a crazy hypothesis about why it might be getting ever so slightly warmer over the last hundred years or so, on a long term schedule which will eventually peak, leading towards a projected cooling trend which will result an expected, totally non-anthropogenic ice age coming soon to a planet near you...

yup. some people just cant handle that shit.

 

[Padawanbater2]

it might be getting ever so slightly warmer over the last hundred years or so, on a long term schedule which will eventually peak, leading towards a projected cooling trend which will result an expected, totally non-anthropogenic ice age

Doesn't believe the scientists when they say ACC is real, believes the same scientists when they say the climate naturally fluctuates

"ever so slightly warmer" - Doesn't understand the effects of temperature on ecosystems or the environment

"will eventually peak" - Apparently accepts ACC while simultaneously can't comprehend that in order for ACC to "peak", changes will need to be made. Believes a natural process will reverse a man made one (brilliant!)


There's a reason 34 national science academies and every credible scientist on Earth accepts ACC, and likewise, there's a reason you don't. Just a suggestion, but perhaps you should focus more on why you don't then why others do...

 

[Dr Kynes]

Doesn't believe the scientists when they say ACC is real, believes the same scientists when they say the climate naturally fluctuates

"ever so slightly warmer" - Doesn't understand the effects of temperature on ecosystems or the environment

"will eventually peak" - Apparently accepts ACC while simultaneously can't comprehend that in order for ACC to "peak", changes will need to be made. Believes a natural process will reverse a man made one (brilliant!)

There's a reason 34 national science academies and every credible scientist on Earth accepts ACC, and likewise, there's a reason you don't. Just a suggestion, but perhaps you should focus more on why you don't then why others do...

and there ya go.

you think the term "Climate Change" exists solely within the bounds of the "Anthropogenic" adjective.

you cannot comprehend climate change unless somebody is to blame, and yes, 0.5 degrees C over the last 100 years is EVER SO SLIGHT warming.

all the rest of your gabbling is nonsense since "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" exists, even the IPCC says so, yet you refuse to accept that "Climate Change" can happen without an "Anthropogenic" tacked onto it.

thats the sort of thing a dumbass believes.

 

[Padawanbater2]

you think the term "Climate Change" exists solely within the bounds of the "Anthropogenic" adjective.

No I don't. The climate of the Earth changes naturally over time

0.5 degrees C over the last 100 years is EVER SO SLIGHT warming.

Does "EVER SO SLIGHT" - mean "doesn't matter at all"?

"Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" exists, even the IPCC says so, yet you refuse to accept that "Climate Change" can happen without an "Anthropogenic" tacked onto it.

No I don't

 

[UncleBuck]

and there ya go.

you think the term "Climate Change" exists solely within the bounds of the "Anthropogenic" adjective.

you cannot comprehend climate change unless somebody is to blame, and yes, 0.5 degrees C over the last 100 years is EVER SO SLIGHT warming.

all the rest of your gabbling is nonsense since "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" exists, even the IPCC says so, yet you refuse to accept that "Climate Change" can happen without an "Anthropogenic" tacked onto it.

thats the sort of thing a dumbass believes.

damn, was waiting for you to try to make "> 50%" mean the same thing as "< 50%".

i guess you had to drop that purposeful distortion from your stump speech.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No I don't. The climate of the Earth changes naturally over time



Does "EVER SO SLIGHT" - mean "doesn't matter at all"?



No I don't

so, then why do you presume to tell me that i am a "Climate Change Denier" despite my repeated assertions that the climate has changed before, and will again, even without anny assumed "Anthropogenic" interference?

why did you assert that previous "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" events never happened?

why do you insist that every discussion of "Climate Change" occur solely within the confines of "Anthropogenic" causes?

why do you presume to declare those who dont buy your pet theory must be nefarious servants of "Big Oil" or the Koch Brothers?

why do you insist that all research which doesnt support your assumptions must be tainted with "Big Oil Money"?

 

[Padawanbater2]

so, then why do you presume to tell me that i am a "Climate Change Denier" despite my repeated assertions that the climate has changed before, and will again, even without anny assumed "Anthropogenic" interference?

Because you deny humans increase the rate at which the climate changes

why did you assert that previous "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" events never happened?

I didn't. I simply didn't entertain your fallacy and chose to answer it in a way you disagreed with

why do you insist that every discussion of "Climate Change" occur solely within the confines of "Anthropogenic" causes?

I don't

If you feel it necessary to post a thread discussing the natural temperature cycle of the Earth and humanities position in that conversation, feel free

why do you presume to declare those who dont buy your pet theory must be nefarious servants of "Big Oil" or the Koch Brothers?

"your pet theory" = ACC I presume.. which isn't my theory, which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on Earth.. because not a single person can be cited not affiliated with big oil or energy, as this thread, and many others attest

why do you insist that all research which doesnt support your assumptions must be tainted with "Big Oil Money"?

The research that opposes the accepted science of ACC is demonstrably politically and financially biased. There isn't a single credible scientist or research paper anywhere on Earth that opposes it.

As this thread shows, you disagree with the mountain of evidence because it makes you uncomfortable and exposes your beliefs as unfound.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Because you deny humans increase the rate at which the climate changes

really? despite my constant assertions that the issue is "How Much?"
Protip: the IPCC now asserts that "How Much?" = >0.5 degrees C / 100 years. while "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" = <.0.5 degrees C/ 100 years.
i, and quite a few climatologists believe that this is still an overstatement

I didn't. I simply didn't entertain your fallacy and chose to answer it in a way you disagreed with

really.
so, your statement that i "cant prove any of that shit ever happened" was really a clever ploy to change the subject, so you now wish to assert that in fact you DO believe that Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" has happened in the past, yet apparently these processes stopped the day you were born...

I don't
If you feel it necessary to post a thread discussing the natural temperature cycle of the Earth and humanities position in that conversation, feel free

yet whenever any one discusses the Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Climate Events you feel the need to insert "ACC" into every discussion, or deride the studies cited or the scientific facts presented as part of a nefarious scheme to "Hide The Troof"

"your pet theory" = ACC I presume.. which isn't my theory, which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on Earth.. because not a single person can be cited not affiliated with big oil or energy, as this thread, and many others attest

no, "CC" is accepted by every climatologist, "ACC" is a politically motivated untestable hypothesis which is actually promulgated by a few fringe eco-crackpots and the UN.

that you cant understand the distinction is the cause of your stunningly powerful butthurt.

The research that opposes the accepted science of ACC is demonstrably politically and financially biased. There isn't a single credible scientist or research paper

anywhere on Earth that opposes it.

and the "research" that "supports it" is even more political, but also unsupportable, fallacious and retarded.

As this thread shows, you disagree with the mountain of evidence because it makes you uncomfortable and exposes your beliefs as unfound.

no, i suspect human action may be causing SOME "Climate Change" but the question remains, "How Fucking Much?"

and apparently the answer is "less than 50%" down from "almost all" 2 years ago.

who can say how low it will be in 2 more years?

 

[Padawanbater2]

really? despite my constant assertions that the issue is "How Much?"
Protip: the IPCC now asserts that "How Much?" = >0.5 degrees C / 100 years. while "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" = <.0.5 degrees C/ 100 years.
i, and quite a few climatologists believe that this is still an overstatement

Source?

The IPCC has concluded;

General

• Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
• There is a clear human influence on the climate
• It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
• IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become.

Historical climate metrics

• It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983—2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.
• It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.
• It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
• There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.
• Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.
• Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO
  2's atmospheric concentration.

Models

• Climate models have improved since the prior report.
• Model results, along with observations, provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

Predictions

• Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.
• The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios
• The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some regional exceptions.
• The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.
• Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume
• Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades
• Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of CO
  2 production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.
• Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative CO
  2, which means climate change will continue even if CO
  2 emissions are stopped.

The summary also detailed the range of forecasts for warming, and climate impacts with different emission scenarios. Compared to the previous report, the lower bounds for the sensitivity of the climate system to emissions were slightly lowered, though the projections for global mean temperature rise (compared to pre-industrial levels) by 2100 exceeded 1.5 °C in all scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

yet whenever any one discusses the Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Climate Events you feel the need to insert "ACC" into every discussion

Nobody argues the Earth doesn't have a natural temperature cycle. Anthropogenic climate change deviates from that cycle, causes more extreme weather patterns and changes in global ecosystems, not to mention has a detrimental effect on capitalism and democracy

no, "CC" is accepted by every climatologist, "ACC" is a politically motivated untestable hypothesis which is actually promulgated by a few fringe eco-crackpots and the UN.

Anthropogenic climate change is accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists

no, i suspect human action may be causing SOME "Climate Change" but the question remains, "How Fucking Much?"

The essence of this thread!

Science has answered that question, the answer makes you uncomfortable and contradicts your beliefs and worldview, so you've made the choice to deny the valid science supporting anthropogenic climate change and keep your incorrect belief

 

[CaretakerDad]

you mean like the "theory" that fossilized bones found deep in the earth are the mineralized bones of giant reptilian critters that lived on the earth before some totally non-anthropogenic climate change wiped em out?

or that the giant feline and pachyderm bones found in the la brea tar pits are the oil soaked remains of huge critters that stalked the earth before some MORE non-anthropogenic climate change wiped them out too?

or the "Theory" that the minoan civilization thrived in an unusually war part of this epoch, as did the romans, as did europe in the period known as "The Enlightenment", but each of these periods was separated from the others by some totally non-anthropogenic cooler periods, before it totally non-anthropogenically warmed up again?

yeah some people just cant accept that these things happened so they make up a crazy hypothesis about why it might be getting ever so slightly warmer over the last hundred years or so, on a long term schedule which will eventually peak, leading towards a projected cooling trend which will result an expected, totally non-anthropogenic ice age coming soon to a planet near you...

yup. some people just cant handle that shit.

It is fascinating that the science deniers conflate natural earth cycles that took tens of thousands of years to manifest themselves with anthropogenic climate change which is occurring in our lifetimes. Thankfully just like the fear of gays and dangerous drugs like marijuana, most of the science deniers who tend to be old and republican, will simply die off leaving a simple(ton) minority of fringe (non)believers to cry about progressive agendas that are destroying our American way of life. Turn up your heat, drive your car everywhere you go........just as soon as you pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Source?

The IPCC has concluded;

...rambling bullshit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

you mean "Wikipedia Has Concluded" dont you?


see i already showed you where you are FUCKING LYING before, when i posted an excerpt, and a link to IPCC report #5

now you come back with THIS SHIT???

hey, here's the relevant quote again you dimwit:

"It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010.
This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods. Observational uncertainty has been explored much more thoroughly than previously and the assessment now considers observations from the first decade of the 21st century and simulations from a new generation of climate models whose ability to simulate historical climate has improved in many respects relative to the previous generation of models considered in AR4. Uncertainties in forcings and in climate models’ temperature responses to individual forcings and difficulty in distinguishing the patterns of temperature response due to GHGs and other anthropogenic forcings prevent a more precise quantification of the temperature changes attributable to GHGs. {9.4.1, 9.5.3, 10.3.1, Figure 10.5, Table 10.1}"
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

see that there: "extremely likely"?

when you go to the numbers (currently unavailable cuz working group 1 is untrusted...) the % caused by humans goes down as their % of "confidence" goes up.

at around 90% confidence they say less than half of the increase in the last half century is caused by humans

so, you are LYING, DISTORTING, and trying to use wiki-motherfucking-pedia to dispute the IPCC's own goddamned report.

is there any depth to which you will not sink in support of your fatally flawed hypothesis?

even bucky didnt stoop this low. he slunk away with his tail tucked between his legs, but you... yeah you got too much of your own self-worth wrapped up in "Agenda-pogenic Global Distortion Of Climate Fact"

less than 50% of the increase over the last half century is "Anthropogenic" according to the proponents of this untestable hypothesis, and they only went that low because they got caught cooking the books AGAIN and decided to try and make their story sound a little more plausible

so the "anthropogenic" global warming according to the IPCC is....

dun dun dun!!!

~50% of the 0.4 degree C increase between 1951 and 2010, giving a net human golbal warming factor of 0.2 C over 50 years which would be 0.4 C /100 years which is Less Than Half of the 1 degree C /100 years they claimed 2 years ago.

~https://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-1-3.jpg

(see how i sourced the IPCC's own report, not wiki-motherfucking-pedia or some asshole's blog?)



deal with it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

It is fascinating that the science deniers conflate natural earth cycles that took tens of thousands of years to manifest themselves with anthropogenic climate change which is occurring in our lifetimes. Thankfully just like the fear of gays and dangerous drugs like marijuana, most of the science deniers who tend to be old and republican, will simply die off leaving a simple(ton) minority of fringe (non)believers to cry about progressive agendas that are destroying our American way of life. Turn up your heat, drive your car everywhere you go........just as soon as you pull your head out of your ass.

see my post directly above.

the IPCC now says the IPCC was full of shit, and the "Anthropogenic" warming was less than half what they claimed 2 years ago.