Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?

[Starcraftmazter]

The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html

This part I find highly suspicious:

"Unscrupulous scientists are exaggerating and peddling fears about permafrost thawing and swamp methane becoming aggressive," said Professor Nikolai Alexeyevsky, Doctor of Geography and head of the land hydrology department at Moscow State University. "Siberia has vast natural resources, oil and gas above all. The article aims to set public opinion against Western Siberia and discourage investment in its industry, oil and gas. They are saying, 'Swamp methane poses a global threat, so don't touch Siberia.' They are deliberately trying to cause panic." Alexeyevsky says that permafrost has a natural cycle of change, and that it advanced and retreated in the pre-industrial era as well.

Given that most oil in Russia is produced by state-owned companies, who have no qualms about building oil infrastructure in Siberia, it makes little sense to me.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

That is beside the point in this discussion with Grasshopper.

Yes probably beside the point, but I suspect SCM is less grasshoppery than everyone reckons.

I wanted to reiterate is that *no belief can possibly be true*, from either side of the fence. The 'decline effect' strongly supports this idea. What we believe is plastic and changeable. How can anyone possibly attach themselves to the pro or anti sides of the debate?

http://harmonist.us/2011/01/the-decline-effect-and-the-scientific-method/

 

[Gringotts Bank]

In the closing paragraphs, Lehrer sums it up very nicely. So impressed, I've decided to make it my signature.

"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". ♦

And if upon reading this article, your mind gives up struggling to understand and goes blank, that's the red pill right there. Deepen it.

 

[wayneL]

Yes probably beside the point, but I suspect SCM is less grasshoppery than everyone reckons.

Yes.

The original Grasshopper was a likable young lad and had an open mind.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Yes.

The original Grasshopper was a likable young lad and had an open mind.

That supposed to be an insult? I'd expect nothing less from a science sceptic

When things don't go your way....ad hominem!

 

[wayneL]

That supposed to be an insult? I'd expect nothing less from a science sceptic

When things don't go your way....ad hominem!

You thought that was an insult? I merely described a couple of virtues of the original Grasshopper. You filled in the blanks yourself.

And science should always be sceptical, that is how the scientific method works:

The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

No ad hom necessary, you're doing a great job of shooting yourself in the foot already.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

And science should always be sceptical, that is how the scientific method works:

I do not understand how you can point to the scientific method; yet ignore the vast majority of all scientists worldwide who all agree about climate change.

This includes Russian scientists.
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/minor-myth-russian-scientists-dont.html

 

[wayneL]

I do not understand how you can point to the scientific method; yet ignore the vast majority of all scientists worldwide who all agree about climate change.

This includes Russian scientists.
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/minor-myth-russian-scientists-dont.html

You make the mistake of concluding there are two extreme poles to the debate.

There is no scientific agreement or consensus on climate change, though there may be political agreement. In fact there is a spectrum of hypotheses on climate change varying on the basis of the various forcings and feedbacks.

No scientist actually denies climate change, or human influence on it. The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

No scientist actually denies climate change, or human influence on it. The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

Does it need to be (proven) catastrophic before you decide it is well worth it to take serious action?

If a dangerously overpopulated world which is fast moving towards catastrophic overpopulation, don't you think that even a consistent 10% reduction in farming yields worldwide would be pretty damn bad?

 

[cynic]

The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

+1

I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree!

 

[sails]

First time for everything sails!

I don't take one side or the other because I just haven't studied it nearly enough. All I've done is read a few newspaper articles. It's not a big issue for me.

But I do have a question for the anti side: How is it that all the world governments have agreed that global warming is a man made phenomenon? For me it's hard to imagine that they have all been led astray by the available reseach. Considering the cost and upheaval it causes, surely they would have done some investigating of their own? They can hire all the renowned scientists they need to analyze this objectively, and yet they have all come to the same conclusion?

GB - I think the answer is obvious. It's an excuse to lift more taxes from the people and redistribute wealth. I also understand that Gillard has promised 10% of carbon tax to the UN.

How much has overseas carbon taxes actually reduced co2? If we are simply trading carbon credits, how does that actually reduce atmospheric co2 even IF it is a problem?

Atmospheric co2 is but a tiny proportion to other atmospheric gasses.

Follow the money...

 

[So_Cynical]

The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html

That's not a test...its one guys opinion.

And did you actually read it..ill quote.

When asked if methane might erupt from the swamps and seriously pollute the atmosphere, Melnikov said, "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane. This is an energy reserve for future generations,

Oh so the "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane"

In the 20th century, the temperature in Siberia rose by one degree Celsius, which was only 0.4 degrees more than in the Mediterranean (which rose by 0.6 degrees Celsius). But even if, as predicted, by the end of the 21st century temperatures have risen by three degrees, this will not be a catastrophe.

And Global temps are rising.

" He pointed out that the greatest man-made menace is not methane, but CO2, which is the principal greenhouse gas.

Methane has a 56 times higher green house gas rating than CO2..in GHG terms 1 unit of Methane = 56 units of CO2...Methane is a big deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

-------------------------------------

More Russian Methane.

The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia.They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...imes-potent-carbon-dioxide.html#ixzz1vVNJZOjQ

 

[Glen48]

A couple and their insurer have been ordered to pay their elderly relative 55 thousand dollars ... after she slipped on a gumnut while visiting their house.

Lets see if GG denies this ???

 

[wayneL]

That's not a test...its one guys opinion.

And did you actually read it..ill quote.

Oh so the "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane"

Uh yes. That's why it's there? It's been accumulating for millennia.

And Global temps are rising.

Thanks for that breaking news SC.... but most people know that temps have been on a rising trend since the end of the little ice age. But once the statistical trickery has been removed, we don't get anything like Mann's hockey stick.

Methane has a 56 times higher green house gas rating than CO2..in GHG terms 1 unit of Methane = 56 units of CO2...Methane is a big deal.

...and measured in parts per billion. It breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

A couple and their insurer have been ordered to pay their elderly relative 55 thousand dollars ... after she slipped on a gumnut while visiting their house.

Lets see if GG denies this ???

Thank you Glen.

I deny this.

The hotel has been ringed all night by protesting nomads in Landcruisers towing caravans, and we arise in South Townsville this morning to a grey dawn, fully clothed line dancing and radios tuned in at full volume to Alan Jones.

Where do they all come from?

gg

 

[Glen48]

Thats OK GG thought it may have been one of your off springs, using a wireless is ok as long as they don't play ABBA all the time.
Let the forum know if AJ talks about GW.
Any one who is rent from a landlord or the bank keep you walkways clean and your insurance up to date..

 

[Glen48]

Here is the church denying the average USA citizen their rights to decide on their family and future where does it say the church has the power to dictate with the same force as Hitler or any other dictator.
If you deny God exist you have to accept She does because some child molester in the Vatican tells you so, .

More than three dozen Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal courts on Monday challenging the constitutionality of the so-called contraception mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

Claiming that their “fundamental rights hang in the balance,” a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate suits against the requirement that employers’ health insurance plans cover birth control.

The mandate created a storm of controversy when it came to light as part of Obamacare. The Obama administration softened its position on the mandate several months ago.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress ”” and will keep at it ”” and there's still no fix," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York. "Time is running out, and our precious ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

In a statement, the archdioces said: "The Archdiocese of New York has filed this suit because the federal government is requiring religious organizations, under penalty of law, to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate access to services that are contrary to their deeply held and constitutionally-protected religious beliefs."

Obama shifted responsibility for paying for reproductive procedures from religious institutions to health insurance companies. But employees of Catholic institutions will still be able to get contraceptive coverage from their health plans.

Just last month, Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl told Newsmax.TV, “This is the invasion of our religious freedom by a government mandate.”

A statement from the University of Notre Dame on Monday said the requirement would call on religious-affiliated groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."

“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures” and “authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently ‘religious’ to warrant an exemption from the requirement.”

The Archdiocese of Washington also issued a statement reading in part: “Today, the Archdiocese of Washington filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) unprecedented mandate dramatically redefining religious ministry and requiring religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.

“Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc.; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; and The Catholic University of America are also plaintiffs in the same action.

“The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need.

“Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith. Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption.

“Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.”

Cardinal Wuerl said in the statement that the mandate forces Catholic institutions “to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that we believe are morally wrong.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Read more on Newsmax.com: Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[basilio]

Denialism is everywhere.. The despair of George Monbiot.

My fight may be hopeless, but it is as necessary as ever

On trial beside Mladic in The Hague is a disturbing case of infectious idiocy and denial which the left can no longer ignore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial

 

[Glen48]

The worst offender is USA denying the world's people to a democratically elected government if your head of government is seen to be a threat to USA business then the CIA etc will step in for to over throw the head and put in their own choice such as the Shar of Iran put in by Carter, Pinochet put in to Chile, or Cater sending Atomic bomb parts via Cape Town to Pakistan to attack and funding the Taliban to fight Russia.
Even when USA had signed an agreement to limit Nuclear weapons it did not stop them from doing what USA wanted to do and used the same blacking mailing policies as the Mafia uses to get protection money ..

If Russia wasn't seen as a threat to USA post war USA would have gone ahead with their domineering agenda.
Any thing seen as a move to Communism or against USA idea's how the government should be run is a call to arms for both sides.
A country that spends more money on power to run military air conditioning units than NASA should get what USA is getting and will continue to get.
Is it any wonder USA is so hated by the World.

 

[Logique]

Denialism is everywhere.. The despair of George Monbiot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial

Monbiot's despair is the world's hope. We know his form. Warmist attack dog, with the credentials of...journalist (surprise!). Don't hold your breath waiting for Monbiot to endorse cold fusion research.