Climate Change Deniers - Can Anything Change Their Minds

[Glacier]

Are you guys done yet?

Theory in Science is not the same as theory in literature.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The problem is that AGW continues to fail the observation and experimentation test. New York was supposed to be flooded by the year 2015. Polar bears were supposed to have been endangered, Arctic sea ice was supposed to have disappeared by 2012, etc.

"If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."
~ Richard Feynman

 

[B00Mer]

In all sober seriousness, there's a "Report" button up there in the corner. Think you got a legitimate gripe? Clickey clickey, little Dicky.

Oh it was clicked I just figured we could settle it like adults instead of having over worked mods deal with it.

Assuming I'm dealing with an adult.

Are you guys done yet?

Fukk off. NO!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Are you guys done yet?

Not sure. Even if we are, I'm sure there'll be another round before too long.

Boomster rarely skips an opportunity to get all offended and pout.

 

[B00Mer]

....and what's with this Global Warming crap.. yeah the Northern Ice is melting in the Arctic big deal, what has been lost in the Arctic has been gained in Antarctica.

Confirmed by NASA and Satellite.

NASA - Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows

Also our magnetic north is also moving.. Alberta will have Nevada's weather in a few 100 years. Facts don't lie.. the Arctic is moving south.

Earth’s Magnetic Field Shifts, Forcing Airport Runway Change

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

....and what's with this Global Warming crap.. yeah the Northern Ice is melting in the Arctic big deal, what has been lost in the Arctic has been gained in Antarctica.

Confirmed by NASA and Satellite.

NASA - Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows

Also our magnetic north is also moving.. Alberta will have Nevada's weather in a few 100 years. Facts don't lie..

Earth’s Magnetic Field Shifts, Forcing Airport Runway Change

And the Pole Star won't be the Pole Star in a couple thousand years, due to precession of the Earth's axis.

I assume you think you have a point.

 

[B00Mer]

And the Pole Star won't be the Pole Star in a couple thousand years, due to precession of the Earth's axis.

I assume you think you have a point.

Yeah the earth changes, it goes through cycles.. us Humans are just along for the ride..

We should be more concerned with getting off this rock and exploring the universe.

An Elysium Space Station Is Possible

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7xKSty8ZUQ

 

[Walter]

Oh dear, Walter's trying to be clever again.

I don't try, I do.

 

[EagleSmack]

Even if you are the most staunch skeptic, you must at least accept that there is a relationship between some level of warming and C02 produced by human activity.

There is no proof.

Therein lies the politics. Without proof there is no KACHING which is what this movement is all about.

 

[mentalfloss]

If you're a religious nutbar, on the other hand, you can deny anything.

Well you don't even have to be religious just going by some of the people posting in this thread.

 

[DaSleeper]

The religious nutbars are the ones believing ......
The Climate-Change Religion - WSJ

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well you don't even have to be religious just going by some of the people posting in this thread.

I use a broad definition of "religion," basically "any emotionally-held principles that one has decided is the immutable truth, and rejects any evidence or reasoning to the contrary."

 

[DaSleeper]

Bingo!

 

[petros]

I use a broad definition of "religion," basically "any emotionally-held principles that one has decided is the immutable truth, and rejects any evidence or reasoning to the contrary."

Strange definition. You assumption ignores the root of Religion.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Theory in Science is not the same as theory in literature.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Take out the limiting word "natural" and ignore the paradox of your comment regarding a confirmed theory and we're essentially talking the same thing no?

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.

If there was dissent within the ranks of climatologists I would agree but there is not.

For example, Plenty of intelligent folks, scientists and politicians reckon the world is 6000 years old, that Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. Does that minority scientific opinion with a sizable level of support amongst the public deserve equal consideration as a valid theory? Almost all astronomers believe that there is no Planet X hurtling towards us but a small number do believe it and have "proof".

I could go on. Dissent must come from within the scientific community itself. If you believe the climate change debate is not politically motivated and interfering with the actual science (started on the left now resisted on the right) you haven't been paying full attention.

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

Wow. You really don't understand the science behind climate change at all but clearly pretend to.

 

[Glacier]

If there was dissent within the ranks of climatologists I would agree but there is not.

The polls actually show significant dissent, but that doesn't really matter because consensus is not what determines truth.

You are basically saying that the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing was faked, etc. are not true because the vast majority of experts say otherwise. No other topic in the history of the world is dismissed because of consensus. Rather, they are dismissed because the arguments and evidence is not very good. The only reason you use the consensus argument is because you cannot actually provide the evidence to support your claims, and in many cases the evidence shows the opposite. It's the old red herring trick people use when they are losing an argument.

 

[petros]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[Kreskin]

The polls actually show significant dissent, but that doesn't really matter because consensus is not what determines truth.

You are basically saying that the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing was faked, etc. are not true because the vast majority of experts say otherwise. No other topic in the history of the world is dismissed because of consensus. Rather, they are dismissed because the arguments and evidence is not very good. The only reason you use the consensus argument is because you cannot actually provide the evidence to support your claims, and in many cases the evidence shows the opposite. It's the old red herring trick people use when they are losing an argument.

Poll summary

"22 percent of the most expert group (emphasis added) in our sample – do not subscribe to the position that global warming is mostly human caused.”

About the same as 1 in 5 dentists not recommending sugarless gum.

 

[Glacier]

Poll summary
About the same as 1 in 5 dentists not recommending sugarless gum.

22% is pretty substantial considering the fact that the believers are totally convinced that 97% agree, and that the science is settle (even though it clearly isn't).

 

[B00Mer]

22% is pretty substantial considering the fact that the believers are totally convinced that 97% agree, and that the science is settle (even though it clearly isn't).

The earth changes, poles shift,it's natural evolution of the planet.

Alberta was once tropical | Calgary Herald

75 million years ago, Drumheller, AB was a tropical landscape of giant ferns and lush palm trees where dinosaurs roamed.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/107923-huge-greenland-glacier-ice-sheet.html

 

[Kreskin]

22% is pretty substantial considering the fact that the believers are totally convinced that 97% agree, and that the science is settle (even though it clearly isn't).

"Is mostly" doesn't mean they believe humans have no part in this. Even if there is only a little cause the next great revolution will come from the development of new clean energy. It is market driven. Remember the old "let the market decide" argument? Well the market has decided they want the future to be less polluting. Protecting the oil market come hell or high water is short sighted and visionless. Prosperity isn't made by sitting on the status quo. Move forward.