Science Denial

[RickG]

Here is a very enlightening video on Science Denial by Michelle Thaller, who we all know from her appearances on the History Channel and Science Channel. It's only 11:30 in length. One of the things explained in the video is her reason for leaving the History Channel.

Comments?

 

[lesliedellow]

I used to wonder what lay behind climate change denial. I came to the conclusion that climate change deniers just didn't want to be inconvenienced by unwelcome facts, and who care about the future anyway - we won't be alive then, even if our grandchildren will.

 

[RickG]

I used to wonder what lay behind climate change denial. I came to the conclusion that climate change deniers just didn't want to be inconvenienced by unwelcome facts, and who care about the future anyway - we won't be alive then, even if our grandchildren will.

I'm unaware of any "actual" practicing climate scientist that is in denial of climate change, rather just the amount and consequences involved. The vast majority of denial comes from sources completely outside the scientific community and of that most are only following their political party's agenda. And what gets me is that the ones claiming scientists are fudging data are the very people who do it all time, not the actual climate scientists.

As for Thaller's reasons for leaving the History Channel, I am very supportive of her reasons. Several years ago I myself became very discouraged with both the History and Science Channels with some of their programming; i.e., programs like ancient aliens, bigfoot, etc..

 

[jayem]

What's troubling to me is the current fad for "alternative" medicine. Especially modalities like homeopathy, naturopathy, and reflexology. For which there is no legitimate evidence of any efficacy beyond the placebo effect. Yes, mainstream medicine has had its issues. But that's no reason to reject a rigorous scientific approach which has had commandingly well-documented successes.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm unaware of any "actual" practicing climate scientist that is in denial of climate change, rather just the amount and consequences involved.

I can help there.

It is obviously impossible for the untrained layman to determine which theories postulated by scientists on either side of the global-warming debate are accurate and which are not. However, one thing is certain: There is enough disagreement among credible scientists to cast serious doubt on the assertion that we are in a period of catastrophic “global warming,” and furthermore, that such warming (if it exists at all) is caused by anthropogenic (human) carbon dioxide emissions.

Given this scientific uncertainty, it is obviously presumptuous for our government to not only take a position on climate change, but to implement government policies based solely on one side of the debate. source

Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals. source

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. source

 

[RickG]

I can help there.

It is obviously impossible for the untrained layman to determine which theories postulated by scientists on either side of the global-warming debate are accurate and which are not. However, one thing is certain: There is enough disagreement among credible scientists to cast serious doubt on the assertion that we are in a period of catastrophic “global warming,” and furthermore, that such warming (if it exists at all) is caused by anthropogenic (human) carbon dioxide emissions.

Given this scientific uncertainty, it is obviously presumptuous for our government to not only take a position on climate change, but to implement government policies based solely on one side of the debate. source

Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals. source

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. source

Thank you for your reply, however, I fail to see where any of those sources provide any information contrary to what I stated. All I saw were news articles and one paper by an economist whose information is based solely on a poll of what was described as engineers and geoscientists. I did not see anyone that fit the description I provided. Perhaps my description was misunderstood, I'll rephrase.

1. I'm unaware of any "actual" practicing climate scientist that is in denial of climate change,
2. rather just the amount and consequences involved.
3. The vast majority of denial comes from sources completely outside the scientific community
4. and of that most are only following their political party's agenda.
5. And what gets me is that the ones claiming scientists are fudging data are the very people who do it all time, not the actual climate scientists.

In (1) that is qualified scientists who actually do the research and publish it in science journals showing where the mainstream science is wrong.
In (2) there is less than 3% of (1) that fit that category. The important thing to understand there is that they do not deny that the earth is warming, only the amount of warming and the consequences of that warming.
In (3) almost all AGW denial is from political sources, or organizations outside of the scientific community. The Heartland Institute and "WUWT" are excellent examples.
In (4) I can't think of a single person (U.S.) in AGW denial that does not identify as Republican/Conservative/Liberterian, thus their opinion is based on party politics, not science.
In (5) there are numerous blogs and media sources that make statements and post charts/graphs/data that are inaccurate, yet insist that actual data collection sources (NASA, NOAA, etc.,) fudge their data. However when the mainstream science sources are investigated the claims are all shown to be baseless and false.

 

[The Barbarian]

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. source

That's a particularly egregious misrepresentation of the research. Here's the actual paper:
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Notice the poll was taken primarily among petroleum engineers and geoscientists working for oil companies in Alberta. I'm pretty sure they didn't tell you that, or that the paper in question points out that the consensus among scientists is for anthropogenic warming.

 

[juvenissun]

I used to wonder what lay behind climate change denial. I came to the conclusion that climate change deniers just didn't want to be inconvenienced by unwelcome facts, and who care about the future anyway - we won't be alive then, even if our grandchildren will.

I don't care about the climate change either. Why should I? Every generation should deal with its own climate change problem. I am sure that human being can always respond much faster than the pace of climate changes. If an island in the ocean is going to be submerged in 10 years, those people live on the island can probably move out in one month. Why should any body worry about anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Comments?

Ya ... a couple.

First of all, qv the video starting at 02:04.

Her nameplate says her name is Tom Blumenthal!

Second of all, unless I missed it, she doesn't say one word about why she's leaving the History Channel.

Thirdly, has anyone addressed the fact that if you fill a glass of ice cubes up with water ... right to the rim, and let it set until all the ice melts, not a drop of water will run over the edge? In fact, the level of water will drop. That's because water expands as it freezes.

Let the ice caps melt, the ocean level will drop ... not rise.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thirdly, has anyone addressed the fact that if you fill a glass of ice cubes up with water ... right to the rim, and let it set until all the ice melts, not a drop of water will run over the edge? In fact, the level of water will drop. That's because water expands as it freezes.

Let the ice caps melt, the ocean level will drop ... not rise.

The Arctic Ocean ice cap, yes. But the continental glaciers on Greenland, Iceland, and the islands of Northern Canada will raise ocean levels. Antarctica, apart from the relatively small ice shelves, will also raise sea levels as it melts.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Arctic Ocean ice cap, yes. But the continental glaciers on Greenland, Iceland, and the islands of Northern Canada will raise ocean levels. Antarctica, apart from the relatively small ice shelves, will also raise sea levels as it melts.

Enough to offset the loss by the North Pole?

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm pretty sure they didn't tell you that, or that the paper in question points out that the consensus among scientists is for anthropogenic warming.

There is no consensus. Plus, there's "global warming" on Mars.
It's all a big fat lie.

 

[Greatcloud]

Enough to offset the loss by the North Pole?

AV yes no melting of the Antarctic ice cap is going to raise the ocean level one iota. Besides it is not going to happen anytime soon because GOD is a supernatural being He said He would not destroy the Earth with water like He did before with the flood. Thanks for being here AV.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't care about the climate change either. Why should I? Every generation should deal with its own climate change problem

First you say you don't care, then you say ever generation should care.

Make up your mind.

I am sure that human being can always respond much faster than the pace of climate changes

Human beings in their ingenuity, perhaps.
The rest of the eco-system, not so much.
And the more the eco-system collapses, the hard it will be on us humans also.

We may be smart, but even our "superior" brains aren't washed up to the brutality of nature and mass-extinction.

If an island in the ocean is going to be submerged in 10 years, those people live on the island can probably move out in one month. Why should any body worry about anything?

Dear me...
A rising sea level is the least of the problems that will result from the current warming trend.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't care about the climate change either. Why should I? Every generation should deal with its own climate change problem. I am sure that human being can always respond much faster than the pace of climate changes. If an island in the ocean is going to be submerged in 10 years, those people live on the island can probably move out in one month. Why should any body worry about anything?

You do know that there are millions of tons of methane hydrate on the ocean floor waiting to melt? Your attitude is just plain selfish irresponsible.

When God said:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

he didn't mean, "Let them do what they damn well like with it."

 

[AV1611VET]

You do know that there are millions of tons of methane hydrate on the ocean floor waiting to melt? Your attitude is just plain selfish irresponsible

Maybe someone will sue him and make a lot of money?

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't care about the climate change either. Why should I? Every generation should deal with its own climate change problem. I am sure that human being can always respond much faster than the pace of climate changes. If an island in the ocean is going to be submerged in 10 years, those people live on the island can probably move out in one month. Why should any body worry about anything?

How do you square your approach with the concept of Christian love as expressed, for example in the parable of the good Samaritan?

While it may be true that humanity will be able adapt there is no assurance that such is the case. And while my house will probably not burn down I still invest a small amount annually for insurance.

I don't know if you have noticed, but people moving out of Syria have generated massive problems for themselves and a degree of difficulty for those countries who have been sound enough to accept them. Is it not rather uncharitable to declare it is simply their problem?

In summary, I take it you reject John Donne's assertion "No man is an island".

 

[juvenissun]

You do know that there are millions of tons of methane hydrate on the ocean floor waiting to melt? Your attitude is just plain selfish irresponsible.

Do you know what would be the temperature threshold of seawater (on the surface of the sea) to trigger that reaction at the bottom of the sea?

My hunch is, we do not have to worry about it. It won't happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

While it may be true that humanity will be able adapt there is no assurance that such is the case.

When starving children in India and Africa give us our money back and tell us to give it to some save-the-earth organization instead, then I'll consider what tree huggers have to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know what would be the temperature threshold of seawater (on the surface of the sea) to trigger that reaction at the bottom of the sea?

My hunch is, we do not have to worry about it. It won't happen.

Your "hunch" is not a substitute for evidence, nore is it a proper methodology of gathering knowledge.