Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:37:40 AM UTC-6, Mark Storkamp wrote:

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.

What if they held an election, and nobody showed up?

More to the point, living in a community that is large in size should not be
used as an excuse for a citizen of a democracy to neglect his civic duties.

Those who I speak with in my local community have more votes than my one, and
if intelligent people of good will in other communities also speak, it adds up.

John Savard

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:52:48 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:52 -0400, Bill wrote:

A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Don't call them skeptics. That's an insult to rational, critical
thinkers everywhere.

Actual science deniers cannot be reasoned with. Harnagel is a good
example of this- an otherwise intelligent, educated person who suffers
from what is arguably a mental illness that completely locks out
reason in certain scientific areas. (I'm serious about the mental
illness- science denialism is under discussion for inclusion in the
next release of the DSM.). Science deniers become more entrenched as
they are presented with more evidence against their views.

There are also people who deny aspects of science because it goes
against their dogmatic world views. Snell is a good example of this.
Such people are not technically science deniers (in the clinical
sense), but because they are extremely dogmatic, reasoning with them
can be nearly impossible. Some dogmatists eventually realize their
error and change their opinions, but it's sadly rare.

I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Being correct about the science is one thing. Acting like an ASS about
it - is another.

Hee Haw!

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:22:24 -0400, Bill wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:52:48 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:52 -0400, Bill wrote:

A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Don't call them skeptics. That's an insult to rational, critical
thinkers everywhere.

Actual science deniers cannot be reasoned with. Harnagel is a good
example of this- an otherwise intelligent, educated person who suffers
from what is arguably a mental illness that completely locks out
reason in certain scientific areas. (I'm serious about the mental
illness- science denialism is under discussion for inclusion in the
next release of the DSM.). Science deniers become more entrenched as
they are presented with more evidence against their views.

There are also people who deny aspects of science because it goes
against their dogmatic world views. Snell is a good example of this.
Such people are not technically science deniers (in the clinical
sense), but because they are extremely dogmatic, reasoning with them
can be nearly impossible. Some dogmatists eventually realize their
error and change their opinions, but it's sadly rare.

I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Being correct about the science is one thing. Acting like an ASS about
it - is another.

I'd say that you don't get it.

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 6:49:02 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

Sometimes things really go right and this is just one of those occasions
which require little or no comment, after all, it is the first time the
motions of the Earth have been seen with such spectacular detail and over
the period of an annual circuit.

It is the same for me as it should be for anyone else with the style and
humility to know what they are looking at and putting false words in my
mouth is inappropriate at this particular moment.The sight of Antarctica
as it makes its way across the fully illuminated face is even more
wonderful than I ever imagined and likewise the Northern surface points
below the fully illuminated face.

Thanks for making me aware of the time lapse, it comes as a gift .



Let's see how NASA created this gift.They used Newtonian equations as
extended by Euler and Lagrange to calculate the position of the Sun/Earth
L1 point.Then they used Newtonian equations to launch the probe into the
correct orbit.This was achieved by using a rocket working on the Newtonian
principle of every action has an equal an opposite reaction. A triumph for
Newton.
Of course you are too much of a coward to discus this.

The cause of the variations in the natural noon cycle and therefore the Equation of Time is wrapped up in the time lapse footage as clearly two rotations are discernible where the dual rotations of the Antarctic continent provide an easy way to judge daily rotation and the surface rotation in response to the orbital motion of the Earth. It has nothing to do with me, Newton ,NASA or anything else unless you want to discuss Newton's phrasing of the Equation of Time as 'absolute/relative time ' but this too is inappropriate as humanity has a first look at dual surface rotations of our own planet.

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz wrote:

That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.



A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Bridle your impatience - keep it where no "denier" can see it. You'll
have more success that way.

hello Bill,
Since you took my statement out of context by snipping the previous words, let me post the thread here and ask you if you were hasty in your judgment. My comment was directed at the last statement, I did not mean it to be directed at climate skeptics, just to people who argue for argument's sake:

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:13:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
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


That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz wrote:

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz wrote:

That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.

A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Bridle your impatience - keep it where no "denier" can see it. You'll
have more success that way.

hello Bill,
Since you took my statement out of context by snipping the previous words, let me post the thread here and ask you if you were hasty in your judgment. My comment was directed at the last statement, I did not mean it to be directed at climate skeptics, just to people who argue for argument's sake:

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:13:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
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

That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.

Sorry Roland,

I got fed up with the whole discussion, and just threw my comments in
whereever they landed...

SAA is a _public_ place. Deniers/skeptics have as much right to be
welcome here as any professional scientist. People do not have to pass
someone's litmus test to post here. Some here want to fight with all
comers. They seek to bully/drive off all who don't tow the correct line.

If we (all of us) cannot agree to play nice - even when we might
disagree - this place will continue to be filled with the worst sorts
squabbles... Always between people who cannot/will not muster the
discipline to police themselves.

(I'm not accusing that you crossed any line. Sorry that I caused you to
think that. One person here has used your thread to make remarks that I
feel are reprehensible.)

Let science deniers see that we're not, all, jerks; and that not all of
us will bite their heads off if they won't accept our "facts" by the
time our fingers hit the send key.


--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:34 -0400, Bill wrote:

SAA is a _public_ place. Deniers/skeptics have as much right to be
welcome here as any professional scientist. People do not have to pass
someone's litmus test to post here.

No, they do not. But science deniers are dangerous idiots, and they do
not belong in a science forum, even if they have a right to be here.
So they can expect to be ridiculed.

You come to a science forum and claim the world is flat, that's what's
going to happen.

Let science deniers see that we're not, all, jerks; and that not all of
us will bite their heads off if they won't accept our "facts" by the
time our fingers hit the send key.

When our facts actually are facts, it is quite appropriate to bite off
their heads.

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:00:37 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

SAA is a _public_ place. Deniers/skeptics have as much right to be
welcome here as any professional scientist.

Gratuitous rudeness is to be deplored. But since when should lies be given the
same welcome as truth? Surely that will only help prolong confusion.

John Savard

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:52:44 AM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

You come to a science forum and claim the world is flat, that's what's
going to happen.


No human society in history ever believed in a flat Earth, however, there are people who are unable to express the basic facts of a round and rotating Earth. More and more I see the clamor outside this forum to prove the 'Earth is not flat' only to see people flounder around unable to deal with the question because of their refusal to accept that stars in circumpolar motion do not equate directly with the Earth's rotation by attempting to bypass the central Sun and the day/night cycle as the sole reference .

For the first time in human history people can watch a location exit and enter the planet's circle of illumination in two distinct ways corresponding to the dual surface rotations to the Sun occurring simultaneously and when we stop to consider the orbital surface rotation we can recognize it as the seasons at our latitudes and the polar day/night cycle at the North and South poles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

The next step is demonstrating the the degree of inclination to the orbital plane (tilt) determines what type of climate a planet has and it works for all planets. Jupiter has an Equatorial climate while Uranus has a Polar climate with their 3° and 82° inclination respectively.

Watching the seasons evolve on Earth from a distance is breathtaking and just simply wonderful and the fact that this occasion has passed off without much attention says much about our sense of value about the planet,its motions and its links to terrestrial sciences with climate being one of them.

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:52:49 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Actual science deniers cannot be reasoned with. Harnagel is a good
example of this

No, he is not. Peterson wishes to paint one as such because he disagrees
with him. "Climate science" is full of sensationalist exaggeration and
flat-out wrong assertions.

Take this one:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

"The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice
per year since 2002"

and compare it with this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet
showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and
2008."

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,"

- an otherwise intelligent, educated person who suffers from what is
arguably a mental illness that completely locks out reason in certain
scientific areas.

As compared to Peterson who locks out the ability to do the math to check
the numbers of the sensationalists. For example, 100 gigatonnes of ice
melted corresponds to less than 0.3 mm of ocean level rise. If that rate
were to continue, it would take over 3000 years for the oceans to rise by
one meter. If anyone believes that climate DOESN'T change over such long
periods (or even shorter periods of a few decades), they are the REAL
science deniers and have the mental illness.

And if anyone asserts that we have to rush to "save the planet" RIGHT NOW
OR WE'RE DOOMED, he is selling a bill of goods and likely has a hidden
agenda. Or they are just a science denier.

Science deniers become more entrenched as they are presented with more
evidence against their views.

Which is an apt description of Peterson. The earth is definitely in a
warming trend. It's been going on for hundreds of years, much longer than
humans have been producing significant atmospheric CO2. Furthermore,
water vapor is a MUCH more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. But when
presented with this evidence, Peterson digs in his heels and starts hurling
ad homs.

There are also people who deny aspects of science because it goes
against their dogmatic world views. Snell is a good example of this.

Peterson is a good example of this. For him, there is only ONE WAY that
the threat of GLOBAL DISASTER due to AGW can be avoided: stop producing CO2
RIGHT NOW! Alternatives have been presented to him, but he dogmatically
rejects them unscientifically out-of-hand.