Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:58:22 AM UTC-5, Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article ,
Razzmatazz wrote:

By Adam Frank, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Rochester:

for climate deniers there is

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that,

In the face of these facts, climate denialists claim that the science is

Just these seven names are enough to expose the problem for climate
denialists.

it. But that is the point, isn't it? Those who espouse climate denial say one

Climate denialists, like everyone else, enjoy the fruits of science. But it's

When climate denialists get sick,

When climate denialists need to stay cool in the summer, they use the fruits

This from a professor of astrophysics? Show me one person, anywhere, who
denies climate.

climate |?kl?mit|
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long
period : our cold, wet climate | agricultural development is constrained
by climate.

Nobody denies that. That doesn't even make any sense.


In case you're about to say what he meant, (but did a poor job of
saying) was climate CHANGE deniers, then once again I have to say that
there is nobody I have ever heard deny that climates change. After all,
where I live was once under a mile of ice. Thankfully it warmed up a
bit. I hope it continues to warm up even more, it's cheaper to run AC
than to heat my house in the winter. A longer growing season might be
nice too, not to mention the lack of major storms, tornados and
hurricanes.

Thanks for the strawman.

By the way, when I was growing up back in the '50s the hot technology was the portable transistor radio. It was a major improvement to the vacuum tube portable that I had at the time (it ate batteries for breakfast, lunch and dinner). However, most kids referred to this new device as a Transistor as in "I was listening to the game on my Transistor". Even though I objected to this usage of the word, I nevertheless did not prevail. So sometimes one has to put up with shortened words like climate denier instead of the more ponderous version. Most thinking people know what that means.

And another thing, it is fashionable for climate deniers to say that the climate has always changed. This is not exactly true. Homo-sapiens did not live during the time of the dinosaurs, and before that time the Earth was much hotter and only bacteria were alive at that time. During all of human time the Earth's heat balance climate was pretty much the same as it is now, but we are heading for a time when mammals could not live on the Earth. And it is happening so fast by geologic time that it's a blink of the eye. And yes, the Earth is more than 6000 years old, Noah's Ark notwithstanding.

In article ,
Razzmatazz wrote:

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:58:22 AM UTC-5, Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article ,
Razzmatazz wrote:

By Adam Frank, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Rochester:

for climate deniers there is

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that,

In the face of these facts, climate denialists claim that the science is

Just these seven names are enough to expose the problem for climate
denialists.

it. But that is the point, isn't it? Those who espouse climate denial say
one

Climate denialists, like everyone else, enjoy the fruits of science. But
it's

When climate denialists get sick,

When climate denialists need to stay cool in the summer, they use the
fruits

This from a professor of astrophysics? Show me one person, anywhere, who
denies climate.

climate |?kl?mit|
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long
period : our cold, wet climate | agricultural development is constrained
by climate.

Nobody denies that. That doesn't even make any sense.


In case you're about to say what he meant, (but did a poor job of
saying) was climate CHANGE deniers, then once again I have to say that
there is nobody I have ever heard deny that climates change. After all,
where I live was once under a mile of ice. Thankfully it warmed up a
bit. I hope it continues to warm up even more, it's cheaper to run AC
than to heat my house in the winter. A longer growing season might be
nice too, not to mention the lack of major storms, tornados and
hurricanes.

Thanks for the strawman.

By the way, when I was growing up back in the '50s the hot technology was the
portable transistor radio. It was a major improvement to the vacuum tube
portable that I had at the time (it ate batteries for breakfast, lunch and
dinner). However, most kids referred to this new device as a Transistor as in
"I was listening to the game on my Transistor". Even though I objected to
this usage of the word, I nevertheless did not prevail. So sometimes one has
to put up with shortened words like climate denier instead of the more
ponderous version. Most thinking people know what that means.

And another thing, it is fashionable for climate deniers to say that the
climate has always changed. This is not exactly true. Homo-sapiens did not
live during the time of the dinosaurs, and before that time the Earth was
much hotter and only bacteria were alive at that time. During all of human
time the Earth's heat balance climate was pretty much the same as it is now,
but we are heading for a time when mammals could not live on the Earth. And
it is happening so fast by geologic time that it's a blink of the eye. And
yes, the Earth is more than 6000 years old, Noah's Ark notwithstanding.

But when it comes right down to it, what I think about climate change,
or what you think about climate change, will have as much effect on the
temperature 100 years from now as your vote will have on choosing the
next president. You need to have one heck of an ego to think your
spitting in the ocean is going to change the tides.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:58:20 -0500, Mark Storkamp
wrote:

Climate denialists, like everyone else, enjoy the fruits of science. But it's

This from a professor of astrophysics? Show me one person, anywhere, who
denies climate.

Any reasonable, educated person understands that a "climate denialist"
is a person who denies that humans are the major contributor to our
currently observed global warming and its consequent impact on the
climate.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:05:07 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:53:50 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
ultimately you are all faced with a simple temperature graph where the Sun is in view at the peak and the stars are in view at the trough

If you pick any particular star, let's say Sirius, this is not true. But you don't want to think about why.

Well, at least he's actually *seen* a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. That's a
positive sign.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:25:39 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Scientists are perhaps the best example of people actively trained to
think rationally, which is why we don't typically see them in the
class of people who deny truths about nature due to political biases.

But a contrary person might point out that this may only be true because global
warming _is_ a truth of nature, and white people being significantly more
intelligent than those of... more recent... African descent is _not_ a truth of
nature.

Scientists will tend to be more humane, more sophisticated, and more secular
than the population at large. They will, therefore, have their own systematic
political biases as a group, and in a sufficiently extreme case even they would
not be immune, although you are right that they are less likely to do this.

Of course, back in the 19th century - and even for some time afterwards - many
scientists cheerfully followed along with the racist attitudes that were nearly
universal in those days. But today the pendulum has swung far enough that had
there been real racial differences in intelligence, they would not have been
seriously studied.

Given how our present culture would overreact to a real, yet so slight as to be
negligible for any practical purpose, difference in intelligence between the
majority and any disadvantaged group (in the majority's favor), though, being
hesitant to either open that can of worms or to permit others to do so does not
strike me as wholly unreasonable or irrational. Racism became unfashionable
precisely because the Holocaust finally showed us where it leads.

John Savard

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:25:39 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Scientists are perhaps the best example of people actively trained to
think rationally, which is why we don't typically see them in the
class of people who deny truths about nature due to political biases.

But a contrary person might point out that this may only be true because global
warming _is_ a truth of nature, and white people being significantly more
intelligent than those of... more recent... African descent is _not_ a truth of
nature.

I take a "contrary person" as someone who maintains and expresses
ideas contrary to reason, and who will therefore be quite apparent to
any rational person.

Scientists will tend to be more humane, more sophisticated, and more secular
than the population at large. They will, therefore, have their own systematic
political biases as a group, and in a sufficiently extreme case even they would
not be immune, although you are right that they are less likely to do this.

To be clear (although I think you take my point), I'm not suggesting
that rational people, including scientists, don't have biases. Just
that they are better at recognizing them and limiting the degree to
which they impact their views- particularly their views about highly
objective things like how nature works.

Of course, back in the 19th century - and even for some time afterwards - many
scientists cheerfully followed along with the racist attitudes that were nearly
universal in those days. But today the pendulum has swung far enough that had
there been real racial differences in intelligence, they would not have been
seriously studied.

Given the state of 19th century scientific knowledge, as well as the
development of scientific methodologies, the views weren't necessarily
unscientific, though.

No greater contrast than technology, music and a joyous celebration of humanity played out on an Earth that turns in a seamless motion where the stars come into view as a location turns through the circle of illumination each 24 hours and although the graceful sweep of a location into a view of the Sun is not captured by the orbiting spacecraft is the slow manner in which it actually occurs, there should be no individuals on the surface who haven't given the issue considerable thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4IhCSMkADc


I don't care if the mindless overthink the whole issue by trying to impose a belief that the Earth has a separate rotation to the Sun as one rotation and to the stars as another, the fact is that experiencing a transition from daylight to darkness is the passage of a person and their location through the circle of illumination each 24 hours.

Let the insane point as gas/petrol pumps and pretend they have some concern for the planet but the real issue is how to recover astronomy using these amazing images.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:05:24 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:25:39 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Scientists are perhaps the best example of people actively trained to
think rationally, which is why we don't typically see them in the
class of people who deny truths about nature due to political biases.

But a contrary person might point out that this may only be true because global
warming _is_ a truth of nature, and white people being significantly more
intelligent than those of... more recent... African descent is _not_ a truth of
nature.

I take a "contrary person" as someone who maintains and expresses
ideas contrary to reason, and who will therefore be quite apparent to
any rational person.

That misses my meaning, which should have been apparent from context.

I was thinking of someone who argues for the sake of argument, or who delights
in puncturing the statements of others.

John Savard

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

I take a "contrary person" as someone who maintains and expresses
ideas contrary to reason, and who will therefore be quite apparent to
any rational person.

That misses my meaning, which should have been apparent from context.

I was thinking of someone who argues for the sake of argument, or who delights
in puncturing the statements of others.

Hmmm. Do we know anybody like that?

There is only one time lapse footage of a rotating Earth as a whole and that is from 16 years ago -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs

There are great challenges in astronomy but considering the motion of you and your location into and exiting the circle of illumination each 24 hours shouldn't be one of them as the planet turns once each 24 hours.

There is the second surface rotation which is implied in that time lapse as the South pole appears exactly where it should for the date it was taken as it turns across the fully illuminated face as a function of the planet's orbital motion and producing the polar day/night cycle as it does in isolation and the seasons where it combines with daily rotation at latitudes towards the Equator.

Is it not time to take astronomy out of the hands of those who would misuse observations for the worst possible convictions ?.