Climate Change Deniers - Can Anything Change Their Minds

[Tecumsehsbones]

This is not a debate about whether four is a number or if gophers exist. Climate change is a scientific fact

Only by a highly strained definition of "fact." For example, that I held up a hammer and let it go, and it accelerated toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/sec/sec is a fact. That matter has a property that causes it to move toward other matter is a theory.

Similarly, in this case, that some parts of the world are warmer on average than they were at some point in the past is a fact. That such warming is the result of EEE-vil corporate conservatives trying to destroy the planet because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, gun-loving scumbags is a theory.

only challenged by the odd wingnut and given that there is more scientific consensus that climate change is occurring now than there is over whether smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer

Well, there's your problem right there. You appear to think that science works by consensus. It don't. If every scientist in the world solemnly declared their consensus that a dropped hammer will NOT accelerate toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/sec/sec, that consensus would change the behavior of the hammer not at all.

youtube evidence to the contray will not sway me.

By which you just proved the point I've been getting around to. The fact that "evidence to the contrary will not sway" you demonstrates that your view of global warming (climate change, whatever the label is this week) is political, not scientific. Refusal to accept contradictory data is a prime violation of scientific principles.

However, I am always amazed that I'll see some poster blasting scientific claims of anthropogenic climate change. What is even more amazing is the same crowd claiming science is corrupt turn around and attack Liberals for ignoring the science around GMO foods or vaccinations.

That'd be some more of that politics stuff. They, like you, have chosen a belief, and like you, reject contrary evidence.

Actually, it's the subset of politics known as "religion," defined as accepting a given set of statements as absolute truth and refusing all evidence or reasoning that might shake the utter confidence in The Truth.

What I am seriously interested in from the denier crowd is what is the minimum level of observable change you need to actually witness before you would consider believing in science over your political opinion?

The maximum? Oh, how about Venus-like conditions on Earth?

I think you meant what is the minimum level of observable change I need to actually believe a theory that fails to account for a large number of variables.

Returning to my analogy, if you drop a feather, it will not accelerate toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/sec/sec. Does that mean the theory of gravity is wrong? Of course not. It means there are variables that must be eliminated for the theory of gravity to be accurate. The same is true of global whatever. We have a mountain of evidence that atmospheric gases are not the sole determinant of temperature of the planet, and the other factors have not been accounted for in global climate change warming theory.

By the way, I have to add that I agree that the planet is warmer on average than it was 100 years ago, and that human activity is at least a partial cause. I just don't care.

No. I believe there are varying degrees of non belief:

Seriously though, it wasn't that long ago I was arguing from the other side. Maybe two years or so.

Then I take it you're fully aware that the same collection of zealots exists on the warmist side?

 

[Locutus]

Climate change is a scientific fact only challenged by the odd wingnut

Is this the ol' man-made climate change or the natural course of events change? There's quite a big difference.

 

[taxslave]

And we're still pulling out of that particular ice age. It actually isn't over.

Question is though, is there anything environmentally negative or unusual that could happen that would make you more inclined to believe the scientific community and not write it off or dismiss it as "natural"?

To start with a viable plan to combat it without destroying the economy. If combating climate change is in fact desirable. Second and most important a stop to the demands for massive transfers of wealth from have nations to have not nations. Third the people that claim the earth is overpopulated put their feet where their mouths are and eliminate themselves and their families from this globe.

And how is the ice free Arctic we were promised back in about 2006 working out this winter?

See the problem is that the truthers tell really big lies. Much the same as the anti logging crowd did back in the 90s. And the Luddites did 300 or so years ago.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

To start with a viable plan to combat it without destroying the economy. If combating climate change is in fact desirable. Second and most important a stop to the demands for massive transfers of wealth from have nations to have not nations. Third the people that claim the earth is overpopulated put their feet where their mouths are and eliminate themselves and their families from this globe.

And how is the ice free Arctic we were promised back in about 2006 working out this winter?

See the problem is that the truthers tell really big lies. Much the same as the anti logging crowd did back in the 90s. And the Luddites did 300 or so years ago.

That's not a problem, that's the standard operating procedure for religion and politics. That and diverting the "debate" with logical fallacies.

People do it everywhere. Check out the "Gun Control is Completely Useless" thread. You got folk over there claiming that drowning deaths are relevant to the gun control debate.

 

[Blackleaf]

Climate Change Deniers

It is estimated that more people are now jailed or arrested in Britain for what they think, believe or say than at any time since the 18th century

One of the more fashionable labels is now 'transphobia', which is used to close down any debate about issues raised by gender identity changes. Transgender activists have even succeeded in getting some feminists, such as the lesbian and gay rights campaigner Julie Bindel, banned from speaking at events because of their alleged 'transphobic' attitudes.

Closely related to this nonsense is the accusation of being a 'denier'. It is a charge used to show that the speaker's opinions are so outlandish and offensive that they must be sidelined or suppressed.

The term originated with the drive to prevent Right-wing extremists from denying the existence of the Holocaust against the Jews, but is now used indiscriminately to hound those with controversial opinions.

In 2014, a group of UK-based environmental campaigners argued that 'climate change deniers' are 'responsible for crimes against humanity' and should face 'Nuremberg-style trials' for 'actively spreading doubt' about the orthodoxy on global warming.

Perhaps the most famous words on free speech were ascribed to the 18th-century French writer Voltaire, who, according to his biographer, said: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.'

Yet we now live in an age of what I call 'Reverse Voltaires', whose attitude is: 'I know I will detest what you say, and I will defend to the end of free speech my right to stop you saying it.'

These people make their influence felt right across our society, from science labs to football stadiums, from the Twittersphere to comedy clubs.

How free speech became a crime as feminists hound Nobel winner Tim Hunt from his job | Daily Mail Online

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It is estimated that more people are now jailed or arrested in Britain for what they think, believe or say than at any time since the 18th century

Good news for you. You positively adore the Britain of the 18th century.

 

[EagleSmack]

Second and most important a stop to the demands for massive transfers of wealth from have nations to have not nations.

Without the promise and hope of massive transfers of wealth from the haves to the have nots the movement dies. Wealth Transfer sustains the movement.

 

[petros]

The hundred or so climatologists back then still actually developing the discipline and stumbling their way through working independently have now been replaced by 100s of thousands of professionally trained ones with their academic work accessible through the internet

That is hilarious and frightening at the same time. Frightening that someone could make and stand by such an absurd statement

 

[Ludlow]

There's way too many cows and hogs these days. chickens too. Mass produced to feed billions of gluttons who think they need to slam the groceries down their necks four or five times a day. Consequently all this livestock must be produced in enormous numbers to feed all these gluttons. Oh I'm sure they'll justify their voracious appetites with a nice salad now and then to create some warped sense of balance in their own minds. . All this extra livestock to feed the gluttons produces billions upon billions of farts that are released into our atmosphere daily. If there were any extra terrestrial life that wanted to visit I'm sure the pleasant odors that permeate our fair planet would direct them elsewhere. Not only that, add to it the human expulsions that escape into our atmosphere eva damn day. I don't know much about global warming but I do understand the concept of global stinkers, of which all of us are. You don't believe me walk down a few isles at the Walmart on a busy shopping day and bask in the ambience fer a spell. It's a wonderful world.

 

[petros]

That's the smell of money.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Well, there's your problem right there. You appear to think that science works by consensus. It don't.

What a ridiculous statement of yours. Of course science works by consensus and always has because there is no absolutes in science only what has been observed to date. For example, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution as do most of the educated public. It is still only a theory and there is no hard proof but what evidence exists is pretty compelling.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What a ridiculous statement of yours. Of course science works by consensus and always has because there is no absolutes in science only what has been observed to date.

What has been observed to date are absolutes. They are facts.

There is always room for more facts, and new theories based on more facts and better facts. But it ain't about consensus. The history of science is replete with examples of new ideas that were shouted down by the "scientific consensus" and later proved to be correct (or more correct). Science don't vote.

For example, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution as do most of the educated public. It is still only a theory and there is no hard proof but what evidence exists is pretty compelling.

What makes the theory of evolution correct, or rather more correct than special creation, is not the opinion of scientists, but the facts.

 

[DaSleeper]

What I have noticed is, that all new converts to a religion or cult feel the need to proselytise...


Jehovah witnesses predictions of the end of the world come to mind......

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

 

[Glacier]

What a ridiculous statement of yours. Of course science works by consensus and always has because there is no absolutes in science only what has been observed to date. For example, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution as do most of the educated public. It is still only a theory and there is no hard proof but what evidence exists is pretty compelling.

You are confusing science with politics. Science works when dissent is allowed! Otherwise, it's politics. It's perfectly okay and scientific to have two different studies - say on the health impacts of red meat - drawing contrasting conclusions.

Science only works when climate change skeptics aren't treated as political dissidents.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You are confusing science with politics. Science only works when dissent is allowed!

I agree with your post entirely, but I'd like to suggest an alternate wording of the above. . .

Science works WHETHER OR NOT dissent is allowed. Suppressing dissent isn't science. It's politics. Or religion.

 

[coldstream]

The more discredited the pseudoscience of AGW becomes, the more hysterical and desperate the claims of the AGW lobby. It is now no more than a laughable concoction of incoherent and inconsistent sophistry and absurdity that must be continually restated as its predictions and 'models' fail.

It should be clear to all that Global Warming is not about science.. it is a philosophical and political ideology intended foment a social revolution.. to depopulate and deindustrialize the Earth.

As it becomes increasingly evident that they have not managed to bamboozle the whole world, just some limpid intellectuals and political hacks, they have turned to the courts to impose this utter nonsense on the world. In the Netherlands yesterday the courts imposed a 'solution' that will drive the Dutch into economic collapse by demanding a 25% reduction in Carbon by 2020.

The plaintiffs used, not surprisingly 'human rights' charters, to make their case. As with Canada we see this instrument used to facilitate a growing tyranny by an unelected and unresponsible judiciary to impose ideological 'solutions' on an electorate, all based on the lies of the New Age.

Radical environmentalism is only a part of that. It includes abortion, euthenasia, economic and industrial dismantling, homosexual affirmation, cultural dissolution. It also includes dismantling of the moral nation state, with the corruption of the global free market.

They all have one thing in common, they are all deeply antipathetical to the human cause and to human population. AGW is just one element in the a coordinated attack by Culture of Death that has overtaken the West.

These people, at least at the level of the high priesthood of radical environmentalism and its brethren, are not just fools.. they are Evil fools.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

*snerk*

 

[petros]

Science in regards to climate change has been emotionally usurped and idolized through propaganda.

 

[B00Mer]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt9ECAdSZwU

Global Warming!! I'm Freezing my nuts off.