AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Reading the comments of the AGW deniers on various threads it is striking to me how similar they way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.
The same applies to AGW deniers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They seem through out that natural variation can affect global warming (I’m not sure any serious climatologist disputes that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than current theories linking it mainly to increase in greenhouse gases. However, and crucially, given that CO2 has increased and is known to be a greenhouse gas they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in CO2 have not led to an increase in global temperatures.
What is most frustrating about deniers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of AGW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.
The same applies to AGW deniers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They seem through out that natural variation can affect global warming (I’m not sure any serious climatologist disputes that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than current theories linking it mainly to increase in greenhouse gases. However, and crucially, given that CO2 has increased and is known to be a greenhouse gas they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in CO2 have not led to an increase in global temperatures.
What is most frustrating about deniers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of AGW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.
To “deny” would imply that anthropogenic warning is empirically proven (to a high degree of certainty e.g. a 99.9% confidence interval). It is not; therefore there is nothing to deny. Unless you are referring to the ‘97% consensus’ nonsense which is often spouted? I wonder if CERN will in future move to a consensus-based approach when asking us to believe in new fundamental particles?
Terminator X said:
What do you say about the "predictions" made 15-20 years ago that never happened? Al Gore for example.
TX.
Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Classic denier response. You have not addressed the points I raised in my post but instead have come back with an irrelevant question. TX.
Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.
Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?
Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).
nammynake said:
To “deny” would imply that anthropogenic warning is empirically proven (to a high degree of certainty e.g. a 99.9% confidence interval). It is not; therefore there is nothing to deny. Unless you are referring to the ‘97% consensus’ nonsense which is often spouted? I wonder if CERN will in future move to a consensus-based approach when asking us to believe in new fundamental particles?
And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution. If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
Piersman2 said:
Yawn, f
king yawn.
So bored of people pushing their beliefs all the time and calling out anyone who doesn't share the faith as being ignorant and ill educated.
Seems to be the way of the world tese days though.
And another classic. Exactly what the anti evolution and religious say: atheism/evolution is just a belief system king yawn.So bored of people pushing their beliefs all the time and calling out anyone who doesn't share the faith as being ignorant and ill educated.
Seems to be the way of the world tese days though.
Esceptico said:
Piersman2 said:
Yawn, fking yawn.
So bored of people pushing their beliefs all the time and calling out anyone who doesn't share the faith as being ignorant and ill educated.
Seems to be the way of the world tese days though.
And another classic. Exactly what the anti evolution and religious say: atheism/evolution is just a belief system king yawn.So bored of people pushing their beliefs all the time and calling out anyone who doesn't share the faith as being ignorant and ill educated.
Seems to be the way of the world tese days though.
Esceptico said:
And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution.
If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
Another classic “believer” response. Tell me, why are you so sure of AGW? If you’re a scientist you may have an opinion but not empirical evidence. If you’re simply a follower, who do you follow and why?If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
nammynake said:
Esceptico said:
And another classic denier response. Just exchange AGW for evolution.
If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
Another classic “believer” response. Tell me, why are you so sure of AGW? If you’re a scientist you may have an opinion but not empirical evidence. If you’re simply a follower, who do you follow and why?If I handed you a bomb and said there was only a 97% chance of it exploding would you be happy to do so?
elanfan said:
Why do people use 3 letter abbreviations from the outset of a post without ever defining what it means. I for one haven’t a clue what AGW is, maybe I’m ignorant but I tell you what I can’t be arsed to look it up.
I’m oot!
It took longer to write your post that to type AGW in google.I’m oot!
Clue: it’s a trigger word/phrase for some on here
Esceptico said:
Terminator X said:
What do you say about the "predictions" made 15-20 years ago that never happened? Al Gore for example.
TX.
Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Classic denier response. You have not addressed the points I raised in my post but instead have come back with an irrelevant question. TX.
Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.
Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?
Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).
Esceptico said:
Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Classic denier response. You have not addressed the points I raised in my post but instead have come back with an irrelevant question.
Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.
Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?
Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).
I see so even when past predictions are wrong then it doesn't matter to you. Whatever happened to disproving theories in science ... Your question is also typically misleading. Rather than cherry pick predictions you should look at all predictions from 20-30 years ago and compare them to what happened. What was the variance for the whole set of predictions? No doubt what has happened won’t be as predicted. But have you looked to see what has been done to understand why reality was not as predicted and how that has been used to better our understanding of the climate? The prediction failures have been used to improve models.
Has modelling been done using natural variation theories? Do they make predictions? Have they been compared against reality? Are they better than models based on accepted climate change science?
Finally, even if the modelling is bad it says nothing about the underlying science (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat from the sun being trapped).
TX.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff