science denialism (Page 4)
theHating: Blah blah blah nicola tesla blah blah blah blah blah blah free energy blah blah blah blah
Next nutcase, please
Angry Beaver: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/science-denialism-in-the-21st-century/
Angry Beaver: Very well written piece although a tad wordy lol
Angry Beaver: In November 2018, Rutgers Global Health Institute and the New York Academy of Sciences hosted a conference entitled Science Denial: Lessons and Solutions:
Following a day of conversation with more than 20 expert speakers, six key takeaways emerged from the event:
1 It’s not “science denial.” Yes, this wording is in the name of the event, but we learned over the course of the meeting that labeling someone a “denier” only leads to their re-entrenchment. Plus, few people reject science in its entirety. We are much more likely to encounter individuals who believe in climate change, for example, but choose not to inoculate their children due to vaccine hesitancy. More importantly, we ALL have a tendency to cherry-pick facts that support our beliefs, and eschew those that fail to comport with our motivations, ideologies, or fears. This is not unique to science.
2 Check yourself. Remember when bloodletting was a thing? For centuries, leading physicians thought that removing a person’s blood could treat a wide swath of ailments. As it should, scientific consensus evolves over time as new knowledge is uncovered, so what we perceive as “truth” today may change. On top of that, science is a power structure with its own flaws. It still struggles with diversity, and is full of hierarchies, biases, and norms that are not easily disrupted. Before we engage with those who challenge scientific thinking, we should first answer the following questions for ourselves: What were the motivations behind the research? How well corroborated is the data? What oversight and criticism has it received? And—this may the most important of all—why do we believe it?
3 Listen first. To better understand those we seek to convince, we must start by asking the right questions: Where did they get their information? What personal stories shaped their underlying fears or concerns? Storytelling is empirically proven to be more potent than stand-alone data, so we must always remember that their anecdotes may ultimately be far more compelling to them than a simple recitation of scientific facts.
4 Keep it relevant. When we transition to sharing information, we should present it in a way that is relatable to our target audience and their community. Rather than talking about how climate change is disastrous for polar bears, which most people are not likely to encounter, we can describe ways in which it will affect them immediately. For example, one speaker from northern Wisconsin learned from local winter loggers that the ground was not freezing as much in recent years, causing their machinery to sink in the mud. In addition, we can help our audience arrive at a new understanding by asking them to evaluate the evidence for themselves, so try offering data instead of conclusions.
5 Engender trust. It is impossible for anyone to sift through all the data in the world ourselves, so people look to reliable messengers, leaders, and peers to filter and interpret relevant knowledge. To be positioned as a voice worth listening to, our best settings are offline, in one-on-one conversations or in community gatherings of people connected by a common thread. But trust cannot be forced. We can help it develop organically out of a natural connection such as a shared religion, neighborhood, or hobby. Alternatively, a “motivating peer influencer,” such as a respected community leader, who already shares your views can help facilitate productive discussions.
6 Remember what you represent. Scientists should receive more institutional support, training, and career incentives to engage in proactive communication with the public. And when we do speak out, we must remember that we represent not only ourselves, but our institutions, and science as a whole. We should resist the temptation to engage with trolls, or become them ourselves by berating “non-believers.” Ridicule will not foster trust.
It is difficult to hear that we, as scientists, have to check our own biases and language when the “other side” of some debates may not engage in the same good-faith efforts. But it is precisely because we are scientists that we must acknowledge our flaws. Research has a troubled history, with the Tuskegee syphilis study as one appalling example among many. Conflicts of interest are still very much an issue within the scientific community. Beyond past and current ethical concerns, the process of science remains a mysterious and occasionally self-contradictory endeavor to much of the population. These are all legitimate issues that must be addressed to allow for a genuine connection between science and the public.
Kari Fischer is a program manager at the New York Academy of Sciences and an organizer of this conference, which was supported in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
theHating: The latest on the madhouse effect:
Deniers are using the same talking points they have always used. Their main attempts to manipulate the judgement of the public have changed a bit. They focus mainly on discrediting the science, scientists, the peer-review process. What blows my mind is that you never see a science denier complaining about an actual hacked p-value to get grant money. The main lines of bullshit are below:
claim: the scientists dont know.
Bullshit: the scientists agree that co2 is the culprit, what they disagree on or "dont know" regards certain man-made aerosols.
Claim: the sun is doing it.
Bullshit: solar activity in the form of bursting flares is high-energy and is what drives the minute day-to-day changes, it's potential is affected by many other things such as cloud cover that day, atmospheric chemistry. When you change the chemistry or albedo of a place, you alter the potential energy it recieves from the sun, and thus you alter the climate.
Claim: there is a greater consensus of scientists that disagree with the IPCC / 97% consensus is a myth
Bullshit: the 97% consensus regards published peer-reviewed articles that support the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. Basically, out of ALL published literature on climate theory, some think X, a few think Y, but 97% of them agree on Z.
Thats all for now.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "
theHating: Just in the two decades from 1990-2010, nearly 12,000 published works on climate; only 3% of them are in contention with AGW. The 97% consensus reflects published points of reference for defining what we now know to call anthropogenic global warming, where "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities" (IPCC 2001)
theHating: "Current warming trends do not fit the models climate alarmists have created. However I think a certain amount of change can be attributed to some other greenhouse gases such as methyl bromide and chloroflourocarbons, both of which are also ozone depleters.
University of Phoenix published something in the journal of Optical Physics which showed there was no IR radiation escaping the atmosphere in the CO2 wavebands (17 - 25 microns) indicating CO2 was saturated and any more will not influence climate.
Do you understand how the greenhouse Effect works? (Uv in, Ir out)? It's not as simple as climate alarmists make it out to be."
Can you please link me that study, because you are implying that earth loses no heat into space, if you concede the air absorbs heat, how do you contend it does not lose heat and thus cannot absorb anymore heat (saturation effect)?
theHating: Ugh, doubling down on "co2 saturation":
Okay, thanks for denying the laws of conservation of mass and energy. So you say there is a study? Oh, i love studies! Really, we lose no heat to space in the co2 wavelength? So co2 doesn't emit heat in any other wavelength? So, co2 breaks the laws of the thermodynamics? Wow! i think you need to re-read high school applied physics texts...
And of course, to break down this argument, you need to understand that if co2 is absorbing all the heat of one waveband, that is not to assume it is not emitting heat in another waveband. Thats just how reality works. It is painful that i have to explain that to someone that holds a goddamned doctorate, but yeah, if you heat something up, it also emits heat.....
kittybobo34: Once the planet warms about 2 more degrees the Methane hydrides start bubbling up and they are 100's of times more of a greenhouse gas than co2.. When we get to that point its game over. The last dregs of humanity might find shelter at the poles.
Angry Beaver: Here's a jolly good read for the deniers, chock full of great scince explanations and facts, sure to enthuse even the most jaded science hater!
kittybobo34: Thinking about this, if our civilization collapses, which it might since all of our factories and technical civilization will be left in uninhabitable areas. We should start saving what we can of our knowledge, plants etc.. so a restart won't take thousand of years again, like it did with the fall of the Roman Empire.
theHating: Okay, so for like the third time, i am sorry to repost.
Re: "the co2 wavelength"
your premise of doubling co2 without any temperature increase has been pandered in the 1900's until 1940, when the US military began logging and studying the absorption coefficients of atmospheric gases to develop communications, the internet, heat-seaking warheads, etc.*1* What you are suggesting is that temperature and pressure couldn't affect the absorption coefficient of co2. Discredited sources refer to it as "the co2 waveband" because if you cross-reference that, you're only going to return the discredited sources. But if you cross the co2 waveband with absorption coefficients of co2, you will get cedible sources which have explained and proven this principle of co2 since 1940.
The hitran database was created after groundbreaking studies on atmospheric absorbtion coefficients began taking off, starting with new thoughts on co2's role in a greenhouse effect. *2*
(Edited by theHating)