Why deny global warming

Buildreps wrote:
What is a 'science' denier? Someone who doesn't swallow blindly what the priests of the new religion tell us?

I am not denying that the climate is warming. I am denying that science has found the right cause. It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change. Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change. The Coriolis effect depends on it. Is that clear enough? Don't just quote professors with their insane ideas that are perfectly in line with the investment plans of the big industries.

The closer earth gets to the sun the slower it rotates. This is a terrain where science hardly scratched the surface - mathematically too difficult for most to wrap their heads around.

You're looking on the wrong spot, bro.

spot wrote:
better to stare at graphs then listen to gibbering demons in your head.

Buildreps wrote:
That's one of the basic laws of physics, my friend.

Buildreps wrote: What is a 'science' denier?

Buildreps wrote: I am not denying that the climate is warming.

Buildreps wrote: I am denying that science has found the right cause.

Buildreps wrote: It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change.

Buildreps wrote:Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

Buildreps wrote:There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change.

Surface Detail wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
That's one of the basic laws of physics, my friend.

No, it isn't. In fact, the Earth is gradually receding from the sun by about 15 cm per year. What makes you think anyone should take you seriously if you can't even be bothered to check the basic facts?

Reference: Secular increase of astronomical unit from analysis of the major planet motions, and its interpretation

IBdaMann wrote:

Buildreps wrote: What is a 'science' denier?

I am so glad you asked. First let me address what a "troll" is.

Warmizombies NEED to redefine standard words so they can claim ownership to key ideas and concepts. The common understanding of "troll" wrt an online forum is a pejorative label for someone who performs a "hit and run" by posting something inflamatory and then leaves. Warmizombies, on the other hand, use it strictly to mean "someone who effectively chips away at my religious dogma and makes me feel threatened." Warmizombies are forever hurling the "troll" pejorative at long-time residents who discuss actual science.

Now for "denier." Since science is the heavyweight authority on nature and reality, it is a grand prize in any forum of ideas for any person or group who can own it. Of course, no one can own science, but warmizombies and climate lemmings will certainly try. The classic "red flag" alert is the implementation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Warmizombies like to pick and choose which facts and which science they want to believe just like a Christian might pick and choose which biblical passages s/he chooses to interpret literally, which ones to interpret figuratively, and which ones no longer apply. The way this is done is to refer to desired/preferred things as "peer reviewed science" (i.e. a true Scotsman) while dismissing anything else as "cherry-picked bluster from a discredited charlatan" (i.e. not a true Scotsman). However, since actual science runs counter to their WACKY dogma, they try to pull the following classic switcheroo.

First, they name their WACKY dogma "The Science" (in the same manner that Christians name their dogma "The Word of God"). They then call nonbelievers "deniers" (in the same manner that a Christian might call someone a "heathen"). So the answer to your question is that someone who does not believe in the Global Warming religion is a "denier who doesn't accept The Science" or is a "Science denier." This feeds into the standard invalid warmizombie tactic of attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Religions are unfalsifiable, meaning no one can prove them false. No one can prove them true either. Warmizombies are thus hosed. On the one hand they claim that their dogma is "settled science" and is thus true, but on the other hand they cannot prove any of their unfalsifiable assertions to be true. The only option they have is to try to obligate the unwary "denier" to somehow prove Global Warming false...which cannot be done because it is completely unfalsifiable. Warmizombies control the conversation to assume Global Warming true until proven false (which cannot happen) and voila! Chalk up a win for Global Warming.

Before the advent of Global Warming, the classic western example went something like this:

Christian: "God is real and active in our lives."
Heathen: "Prove it."
Christian: "Just look around. Who do you think created everything?"
Heathen: "Well, I don't know."
Christian: "Then prove God isn't real and that someone else created everything. Good luck with that."

The Global Warming version does not differ in any substantial way. Attention climate deniers: This scientist will give you $10,000 for actual proof that global warming is a hoax . (This web page is highly recommended reading)

Buildreps wrote: I am not denying that the climate is warming.

Well you are implying that you know what "climate" is. Tell me, what is the global "climate" system?

Buildreps wrote: I am denying that science has found the right cause.

Is "climate" a tangible thing or is it an effect? ...or is it a completely notional concept, like an "average"?

Buildreps wrote: It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change.

Hold on! It most certainly is not laughable. I assume "climate" is the temperature in my car, which I adjust with my "climate control" setting. Nature doesn't change it. I do, or whoever happens to be driving, or the front passenger.

Buildreps wrote:Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

The earth has a balancing system?

Buildreps wrote:There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change.

"climate change"? What are the units of measure for "climate"?


.

Buildreps wrote:
The eccentricity of earth's orbit is currently increasing.

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.

The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't. That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma". See points (1) and (2) under the list of Dunning-Kruger signs that I posted.

Buildreps wrote:Thanks a lot, IBdaMann, for this comprehensive explanation, and the link.

Buildreps wrote: I think climate is the combination of parameters like temperature, wind speeds, ocean currents, moisture, etcetera.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.

The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't. That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma". See points (1) and (2) under the list of Dunning-Kruger signs that I posted.

Dunning-Kruger is psychoquackery. They are the proud owners of an Ig Nobel Prize as well. I'll use the theory in reverse on you:

You are deluding yourself if you think you have the competence to state that global warming is falsifiable science, or that you have the expertise to psychoanalyze people. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What these two (and you) have failed to realize is that they are subject to their own effect. To even use this reasoning to discard another's argument is Bulverism. Because their own effect comes back upon them as well, the net result is a void argument. It cancels itself out.

Peer review does not define science. Lack of peer review does not define lack of science.

Fast talking your way out of providing a falsifiable theory of Global Warming is not going to work.

Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.

Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Dunning-Kruger is psychoquackery. They are the proud owners of an Ig Nobel Prize as well. I'll use the theory in reverse on you:

You are deluding yourself if you think you have the competence to state that global warming is falsifiable science, or that you have the expertise to psychoanalyze people. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What these two (and you) have failed to realize is that they are subject to their own effect. To even use this reasoning to discard another's argument is Bulverism. Because their own effect comes back upon them as well, the net result is a void argument. It cancels itself out.

Peer review does not define science. Lack of peer review does not define lack of science.

Fast talking your way out of providing a falsifiable theory of Global Warming is not going to work.

The difference is that I'm not stating that global warming is falsifiable science and simply expecting you to believe me. I use logical argument and refer to the peer-reviewed work of others to bolster my arguments. IBdaMann and you simply state an opinion (and occasionally refer to non-peer reviewed gibberish) and unreasonably expect others to take you seriously.

For practical purposes, peer review does define science, or at least judges what constitutes science according to the principles that include falsifiability.

Surface Detail wrote: I use logical argument and refer to the peer-reviewed work of others to bolster my arguments. IBdaMann and you simply state an opinion (and occasionally refer to non-peer reviewed gibberish)...

Surface Detail wrote: For practical purposes, peer review does define science, or at least judges what constitutes science according to the principles that include falsifiability.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.

Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.

Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.

Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.

I see the root of your and IBdaMann's misunderstanding now - you really don't appreciate the importance of peer review! That certainly doesn't reflect well on the science education systems of your respective home countries and explains why you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Here's an introductory guide from the University of California to get you started:

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

Surface Detail wrote: If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

Surface Detail wrote: And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"?

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.

Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.

I see the root of your and IBdaMann's misunderstanding now - you really don't appreciate the importance of peer review! That certainly doesn't reflect well on the science education systems of your respective home countries and explains why you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Here's an introductory guide from the University of California to get you started:

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

Wrong. You really don't understand the futility of using peer review as a gateway. Now you are saying Berkeley owns science. No one owns science. No publisher, no magazine, no journal, no university, no government, no other group you can name, NO ONE. Consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

Surface Detail wrote: Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.

Everyone except warmizombie science-illiterates is aware that "peer review" is entirely optional.

Surface Detail, whose approval do you believe is required for an idea to become science?

Who do you believe can block an idea from becoming science?

No one owns science

Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else's unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Wrong. You really don't understand the futility of using peer review as a gateway. Now you are saying Berkeley owns science. No one owns science. No publisher, no magazine, no journal, no university, no government, no other group you can name, NO ONE. Consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method.

No, I'm not saying that Berkeley owns science. That's the voices in your head. I'm saying that the good folk at Berkeley know how go about determining what constitutes science - peer review - and have published this helpful guide to the process. It's no secret of course. Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.

Surface Detail EVADED the folloing questions::

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail, whose approval do you believe is required for an idea to become science?

Who do you believe can block an idea from becoming science?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.

Hold your breath while you do. I want my admission and polite, friendly request.

I have no dire need to help you . If you're fine with Global Warming remaining nothing more than the WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma it is, so am I.

Surface Detail wrote: Or could it be that "post a falsifiable model" is a meaningless request, an unanswerable rhetorical device?

Surface Detail wrote:I've already described in detail the theory behind global warming

Surface Detail wrote: ...and given references to peer-reviewed papers ...

spot wrote: ibaman asserted that it was against the laws of physics for the concentration of CO2 to affect air temputure.

spot wrote: I said that anyone can demonstrate that it can,

spot wrote: I posted a simple experiment showing that and then he still denyed it and started making up convoluted and unphysical explanations on how the video poster was tricking us.

spot wrote:The fool even denys evidence that you would think was incontrovertible.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.

Hold your breath while you do. I want my admission and polite, friendly request.

I have no dire need to help you . If you're fine with Global Warming remaining nothing more than the WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma it is, so am I.

Oh, no falsifiable model of evolution. What a disappointment. Following your logic, I should therefore assume that you are in fact a religious creationist.

Or could it be that "post a falsifiable model" is a meaningless request, an unanswerable rhetorical device? I've already described in detail the theory behind global warming and given references to peer-reviewed papers and introductory guides to the topic. I've indicated where you can download the software and data used to determine global temperature anomalies from weather station data. This, taken together, is the falsifiable model of global warming.

Unless you can be more specific about what you are asking for, then there's nothing more I can do to help you.

IBdaMann wrote:
You have made it clear that you have been duped into believing that there are people who own science and that their "peer review" approval determines science. That's your problem, not mine.