The NYTimes on science denial

If only those four points of light had behaved themselves!

Henry J said: If only those four points of light had behaved themselves!

Galileo’s achievement was the end of geocentrism,...

raven: Could you back up that claim? Are you counting people who just aren't sure what they learned in school, i.e. the merely clueless?

But Galileo was a creationist. That shows that real science is on the side of creationism.

At least that's how current evidence-denial "thinks."

Glen Davidson

The thing that tickles and outrages me at the same time is the creationists who use the internet and computers and yet have the audacity to deny the very science that makes the internet and computers possible - not to mention cleaner water and more plentiful food and longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates and all the other benefits of modern science.

But Galileo was a creationist. That shows that real science is on the side of creationism. At least that's how current evidence-denial "thinks." Glen Davidson

wikipedia Geocentrism: Morris Berman quotes survey results that show currently some 20% of the U.S. population believe that the sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know.[40]

Creationism and Intelligent Design - Page 268 - Google Books Result books.google.com/books?id=ffgBF2jWM8MC Wikimedia Foundation [5] Modern geocentrists believe that they are the true standard-bearers for an ... results that show currently some 20% of the USA population believe that the sun ...

Are you counting people who just aren’t sure what they learned in school, i.e. the merely clueless?

Byers is now banished to the BW. I'm tired of stupidity.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Byers is now banished to the BW. I'm tired of stupidity.

To quote Dawkins once again, "There is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence."

Galileo’s achievement was not the end of geocentrism since his efforts hardly settled the matter. How could discovering the four moons of Jupiter guarantee that the sun is in the middle? You can't see geocentrism through a telescope. What you can see, specifically the phases of the planet Venus, which is actually relevant, is consistent with other systems such as that of Galileo's contemporary, the great astronomer Tycho Brahe. It took the development of a dynamic theory of the solar system to establish heliocentrism by explaining the sun's physical role. In other words, it took Newton.

No serious historian of science buys the pious version of Galileo's accomplishment retailed by the Times.

Might as well get the history right.

"Galileo’s achievement was the end of geocentrism...."

Galileo, the N.Y. Times should know, was a Creationist: he offered all of his discoveries under the assumption of supernatural causation and design. When he lived absolutely no one believed the heavens produced, arranged and organized itself.

Glen called it.

Flint said: To quote Dawkins once again, "There is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence."

Ray Martinez said:

Flint said: To quote Dawkins once again, "There is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence."

We completely agree.

DS said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Byers is now banished to the BW. I'm tired of stupidity.

Thanks Richard. Robert has never made a coherent point, let alone a valid one. Why he is allowed to continue to vomit his crap on these threads is a mystery. On the other hand, he is the perfect example of the topic of this thread. There is literally no evidence that will ever convince him. There is no evidence that he will not remain willfully ignorant of. I honestly cannot understand this mentality. History shows the folly of ignoring reality. History confirms the efficacy of empiricism. How can you live in a modern society and deny the very methods by which it was created? How can you be so arrogant and so myopic that you can never admit that you were wrong or change your position based on evidence? It must be a very frightening way to live. Think about it, you could virtually never take any scientific study seriously, at least without being a total hypocrite. But then again, that never seemed to bother Robert either. Apparently there is a large percentage of the population that is almost as bad.

Hinckley, then church president, told the Los Angeles Times "The 1978 declaration speaks for itself ... I don't see anything further that we need to do". Church leadership did not issue a repudiation.[114] Church apostle Dallin H. Oaks said: "It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it... I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking... Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies."

OTOH, the evidence is pretty clear that "The Lord(tm)" changed his mind because of money (or earthly power, or both). It was important to expand the Mormon church into Latin America and Africa. It was a growth industry. But no one on those continents was going to join a church where only white males were allowed. Viola! "Revelation". Now there are a million more heads to tithe (literally tithe) to the church than before the "Revelation".

It really is convenient (and "surprisingly" coincidental) when the "Authority" just happens to ordain exactly what the "Leadership" wants to happen, and just exactly when the "Leadership" needs it to happen.

Just think what could be accomplished in Science by the power of "Revelation". No more study, no more backbreaking expensive field work, no more stupid intractable simulations or expensive labs. Just pray hard enough, and viola! "Revelation." The added benefit of "Revelation"? You don't have to explain anything. No more tedious presentations at boring seminars. No more time consuming journal articles to research and write up. Just self publish a new "Revelation". Heck, the rubes will even pay you to come and preach your "Revelation". Just ask Dempski.

Yeah. It sounds pretty appalling to me too.

Scott F said: Viola!

On the 'immutability' of fundamentalist thought I thought a heads up to the wonderful booklet by Gerald Huther (Head of Department of Fundamental Neurobiological Research, the Psychiatric Clinic of Gottingen Germany)is due. The book is called, 'The Compassionate Brain' and explains in quite accessable language, why Robert Byers and Ray Martinez, and their ilk, are so profoundly and immutably thick. Written in 2001, and at long last translated in 2006, it explains how the nurture/nature debate to explain behaviour is important but flawed, and how in the 90's it was discovered that brain cells are indeed NOT 'hardwired' in the first years of development. It explains that the most modern research confirms that those people constantly willing to re-assess what they believe to be true, those whom constantly challenge their thinking have the most healthy brains: it also, as an addedd bonus staves off progressively degenerative brain illnesses.

"The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos." Stephen J. Gould

raven said: The Flat Earthers these days are mostly Moslem cults. Boko Harum, the notorious Nigerian terrorists, are Flat Earthers and also deny the cloud theory of rain.

These are results from mainstream polls, Gallup etc.. As to how many are clueless and how many are religious fanatics, who knows? That would require further information. It is telling that the percentage is higher at 26% among fundies.

Jim said: Galileo’s achievement was not the end of geocentrism since his efforts hardly settled the matter. How could discovering the four moons of Jupiter guarantee that the sun is in the middle?

eric said:

Jim said: Galileo’s achievement was not the end of geocentrism since his efforts hardly settled the matter. How could discovering the four moons of Jupiter guarantee that the sun is in the middle?

It demontstrated that the church was wrong in asserting that every celestial body orbited the earth. For astronomers, this opened up the way for to consider other hypotheses. But from a wider perspective, it undermined the credibility of the church on matters of (what we'd now call) science. Okay, so maybe he didn't single-handedly topple the edifice of geocentrism. But I think it's fair to say he kicked out the foundation of it.

Scott F said: The "Authority" is always "right", always was "right", and always will be "right", even if the dogma changes.

eric said:

Jim said: Galileo’s achievement was not the end of geocentrism since his efforts hardly settled the matter. How could discovering the four moons of Jupiter guarantee that the sun is in the middle?

It demontstrated that the church was wrong in asserting that every celestial body orbited the earth. For astronomers, this opened up the way for to consider other hypotheses. But from a wider perspective, it undermined the credibility of the church on matters of (what we'd now call) science. Okay, so maybe he didn't single-handedly topple the edifice of geocentrism. But I think it's fair to say he kicked out the foundation of it.

Those who express dissent from the usual global warming sales-pitch, are often dismissed as "science-deniers", even if they have the scientific credentials with which to express their doubts.

And of course, like dutiful drooling lapdogs, the libbie media goes right along with the game. As expected.

But not all of them. A few journalists still keep an open mind; they still keep in mind the very checkered history of the global warming gig. Of course, such journalists can count on getting criticized for their brave efforts, but they're tough enough to keep on going.

One of those journalists is the Kansas City Star's E. Thomas McClanahan. He dares to remind readers that the global warming religion still has some skewed preachin's in there. Take a look!

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/22/4024161/e-thomas-mcclanahan-whatever-happens.html

FL

PS. I'm back.

Sure, you could be Tycho Brahe and keep a hybrid, wherein Venus circled the sun along with Mercury, while the sun and everything else (save other planets’ moons) circled the earth.

Tell us, FL, why should global warming skeptics be not be dismissed as "science-deniers" when they refuse to look at any of the numerous evidences for global warming, and when they accuse the scientific community as participating in a massive, liberal conspiracy of evil to destroy Capitalism, AND when what precious little evidence of their own they do provide does not stand up to even light scrutiny?

*cue FL running away*

Science-Hating Bigot For Jesus babbled: Those who express dissent from the usual global warming sales-pitch, are often dismissed as "science-deniers", even if they have the scientific credentials with which to express their doubts. And of course, like dutiful drooling lapdogs, the libbie media goes right along with the game. As expected.

FL said: Those who express dissent from the usual global warming sales-pitch, are often dismissed as "science-deniers", even if they have the scientific credentials with which to express their doubts.

If you think of AGW denialism and similar tactics by the tobacco companies, one wonders if it really should be considered to be science denial. After all, they're keen to claim the mantle of science, they just lie about it.

So perhaps it's ok to say that they're not science deniers. Good old-fashioned dishonesty, such as FL rampantly evinces, is sufficient to explain them.

Glen Davidson

This reminds me of the Jeff Foxworthy routine: "You just might be a redneck if ..."

You just might be a science denier if:

You refuse to read the scientific literature.

You accuse all the experts of creating a conspiracy (even though they have neither the means, nor the opportunity or the motivation to do so).

If you refuse to actually look at the evidence.

If you don't understand that which you criticize.

If you will never change your opinion no matter what.

If you think personal attacks represent a valid argument.

Of course Floyd does all of these things, but what can you expect from a guy who is proud that his religion is incompatible with reality?

Jim said: Galileo’s achievement was not the end of geocentrism since his efforts hardly settled the matter. How could discovering the four moons of Jupiter guarantee that the sun is in the middle? You can't see geocentrism through a telescope. What you can see, specifically the phases of the planet Venus, which is actually relevant, is consistent with other systems such as that of Galileo's contemporary, the great astronomer Tycho Brahe. It took the development of a dynamic theory of the solar system to establish heliocentrism by explaining the sun's physical role. In other words, it took Newton. No serious historian of science buys the pious version of Galileo's accomplishment retailed by the Times. Might as well get the history right.

SLC said: That was the opening wedge in the fall of geocentrism.

Just Bob said:

SLC said: That was the opening wedge in the fall of geocentrism.

That wedge seems to have been more effective than a more recently proclaimed one.

So, Eric, what about that meteorologist that McClanahan mentioned, Anthony Watts? Is HE a science denier?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

FL

FL said: So, Eric, what about that meteorologist that McClanahan mentioned, Anthony Watts? Is HE a science denier? http://wattsupwiththat.com/ FL

FL said: So, Eric, what about that meteorologist that McClanahan mentioned, Anthony Watts? Is HE a science denier? http://wattsupwiththat.com/ FL

Curious FL, do you deny that the earth is warming, or do you accept that it is warming, but doubt that the warming is caused by human behaviour?

Galileo was an prime example of a home truth: if you want to be a famous scientist, figuring out how to get the credit is the crucial part. The actual discovering or inventing is optional. Few have ever been as skilled or as diligent at self promotion as Galileo. That's is not to say that the guy didn't make genuine contributions, but that he was better at PR than mathematics or astronomy. A comment thread is not a very good place to set the story straight—I recommend the various posts on the matter on Thony Christie's Renaissance Mathematicus web site. Any serious bio of Galileo or non-popular history of Astronomy will also do the trick.

FL said: So, Eric, what about that meteorologist that McClanahan mentioned, Anthony Watts? Is HE a science denier? http://wattsupwiththat.com/ FL

Well FL, there you go.

FL said: So, Eric, what about that meteorologist that McClanahan mentioned, Anthony Watts? Is HE a science denier? http://wattsupwiththat.com/ FL

Indeed, to the turd the 'authoritative scientist' is the lone (crazy) voice crying what he wants to hear.

Anthony Watts is an extremely popular blogger…. Yet his blog contains highly questionable information — presented very “scientifically” of course, replete with charts and graphs — but all directed toward the end of making the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming seem faulty (in fact it’s extremely robust). A particular delight of the blog: hyping individual winter-weather events as if they have something to do with refuting global warming trends, a basic error of statistical reasoning.

Rando said:

FL said: So, Eric, what about that meteorologist that McClanahan mentioned, Anthony Watts? Is HE a science denier? http://wattsupwiththat.com/ FL

Oh yeah, forgot about BEST and Watts' complete about-face on Richard Muller.
That was sadly predictable.

apokryltaros said: Tell us, FL, why should global warming skeptics be not be dismissed as "science-deniers" when they refuse to look at any of the numerous evidences for global warming, and when they accuse the scientific community as participating in a massive, liberal conspiracy of evil to destroy Capitalism, AND when what precious little evidence of their own they do provide does not stand up to even light scrutiny? *cue FL running away*

So, if I'm hearing you all correctly, Watts is suffering from the same disease that led to Climategate and to continued selling the Broken Hockey Stick after a global warmer or two knew it was broken.

Is that somewhat correct?

FL

To put this in perspective, a recent poll asked US respondents their opininon on two acts of Congress: one real (Simpson-Bowles), one completely made up (“Panetta-Burns,” link). 25% of respondents said they either supported or opposed the fake plan. So I don’t think 20% of the populace answering yes on geocentrism means much beyond the obvious: people will often pretend to have a strong opinion on a subject on which they are completely ignorant, just so as not to appear ignorant.

harold said: What a coincidence that FL is also a climate denialist. It's almost as if he conforms to a rigid authoritarian ideology on multiple issues...

If you use terms like "climategate" and "hockey stick" as if they somehow proved something, you just might be a science denier (and a red neck).

Climategate was a mirage, a bunch of people who didn't understand what they were reading making much ado about nothing. Ironically, that was what the content was mostly about.

One sign of science denial: thinking a fraud refutes the science.

harold said: That's not quite oranges to oranges. The fake act of congress question is heavily basing. Some people would confuse the fake name with another act of congress that they do have an opinion on. Many others would be embarrassed that they "hadn't heard of it" and attempt to disguise that with an answer implying that they have an informed opinion of it. "Does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth" is less basing.

FL said: Those who express dissent from the usual global warming sales-pitch, are often dismissed as "science-deniers", even if they have the scientific credentials with which to express their doubts. And of course, like dutiful drooling lapdogs, the libbie media goes right along with the game. As expected. But not all of them. A few journalists still keep an open mind; they still keep in mind the very checkered history of the global warming gig. Of course, such journalists can count on getting criticized for their brave efforts, but they're tough enough to keep on going. One of those journalists is the Kansas City Star's E. Thomas McClanahan. He dares to remind readers that the global warming religion still has some skewed preachin's in there. Take a look! http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/22/4024161/e-thomas-mcclanahan-whatever-happens.html FL PS. I'm back.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Byers is now banished to the BW. I'm tired of stupidity.

Charley Horse said: It is becoming harder to find what some might consider a credible source for those who continue to deny human caused global warming.

Climategate was a mirage, a bunch of people who didn’t understand what they were reading making much ado about nothing.

Along with heat in the United States, The Times story described snow in Jerusalem, endless rain in Britain, heat waves in Brazil and Australia and an arctic air mass settling in from Central Europe to South Asia - a cold wave severe enough to cause several hundred deaths. In Siberia, it was so frigid that natural gas liquefied in its pipes. Omar Baddour of the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva told The Times that these events were a sign that, as the paper put it, "climate change is not just about rising temperatures but also about intense, unpleasant, anomalous weather of all kinds." In other words, if the temperature isn't rising globally then "climate change" is pretty much anything bad that happens. I wish I could remember the blogger who crystallized the fallacy at work here, but he nailed it perfectly: If everything that happens becomes evidence for what you want to believe, how can you call it "science"?

FL said: If we were honest about things and not into media-political tactics like the term "science denier", we'd admit that we are all wrong sometimes on science matters AND obstinate about our wrongness (a spoonful of Kuhn, anyone?).

[quoting McClanahan] In other words, if the temperature isn't rising globally then "climate change" is pretty much anything bad that happens.

I wish I could remember the blogger who crystallized the fallacy at work here, but he nailed it perfectly: If everything that happens becomes evidence for what you want to believe, how can you call it "science"?

...those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

FL said: What should give us pause is that NOT ONLY is Climategate real, but for all those years in which the data got fudged by scientists, we cannot go back in time and retrieve the correct numbers for those years.

scienceavenger said:

FL said: What should give us pause is that NOT ONLY is Climategate real, but for all those years in which the data got fudged by scientists, we cannot go back in time and retrieve the correct numbers for those years.

There was nothing in the Climategate emails that suggested scientists fudged data for years to show warming where there wasn't. Did you actually read the emails? I did. It was merely a case of people knowing they were dealing with a sensitive issue where it was important to control what got publicized because of the danger of people who didn't understand what they were looking at making a big deal out of nothing. Like I said, ironically, that's exactly what happened. Mirage it remains. Climategate no more calls global warming into question than did Piltdown call evolution into question, and that analogy assumes Climategate was a real fraud, which it wasn't.

He better hope that global warming is real,

An Idiot said: And here's a simple reason for you to avoid tactics like calling folks "science denier" -- the fact that you've got A LOT of regular scientists who simply dissent from the global warming sales-pitch.

Henry J said:

He better hope that global warming is real,

Nobody with sense, education, and empathy would want global warming to be the case. (Not that this would apply to FL, of course, as he lacks at least one all of those qualities.)

FL said: Let's unpack that one. First, do I deny that the earth is warming? I don't know. I bought into it the first time around (when the instructor showed us Al Gore's famous movie), but now I honestly don't know anymore.

FL said: While I'm not Watt's appointed attorney or anything, it occurred to me that what you guys were accusing Watts of (being wrong on some of his claims and being obstinate about 'em anyway) is the SAME thing that brought Climategate and Broken Hockey Stick onto the stage.

If we were honest about things and not into media-political tactics like the term "science denier", we'd admit that we are all wrong sometimes on science matters AND obstinate about our wrongness (a spoonful of Kuhn, anyone?).

This is an excellent example of the wrongness-obstinancy thing. What should give us pause is that NOT ONLY is Climategate real, but for all those years in which the data got fudged by scientists, we cannot go back in time and retrieve the correct numbers for those years.

"The same people who were up in arms over “climategate” uncritically accepted this new “no warming in 16 years” argument despite the fact that it relied on the “climategate” temperature series. The denialist crowd is perfectly willing to use it when they think it makes a point for them, despite spending years scorning it as the product of bad science. Self-contradictory beliefs do not bother them. "

Hmm, reminds me of the way fundamentalists use (and then refuse to use) carbon dating.

Also reminds me of JFK conspiracists, who rail against the Warren commission, yet use their findings whenever it suits them. Cosspiracy theorists seem all of one mind. Hmmm, seems like...A CONSPIRACY!

There was nothing in the Climategate emails that suggested scientists fudged data for years to show warming where there wasn’t.

(Three) themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a matter for balanced scientific inquiry; and ( 3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/01/climate-change-weekly-climategate-2-reveals-more-destruction-evidence-s

Why haven’t any of these 16 scientists provided any credible evidence to show that global warming isn’t happening?

Watts is clearing making mistakes and talking about things which he does not understand in even the most superficial way.

At the "Watts Up With That" blog, meteorologist Anthony Watts found that search trends on Google for "global warming" and "climate change" have radically dropped off in recent years, while searches for "extreme weather" barely registered.

One reason may be that many people picked up on the dodginess of the shift from "global warming" to "climate change." The Climategate scandal of 2009 - in which scientists wrote back and forth on how to thwart freedom-of-information filings or manipulate data - was a major blow to the theory's credibility. Then there's the lack of significant warming since 1998, still the hottest year on record globally. What's more, that trend will continue if you believe scientists at the British Met Office, an agency sometimes described as Britain's NOAA. The Met created a minor flap recently when, over the Christmas holiday, it posted a new set of predictions coughed up by its computer models. Unlike the previous year's forecasts, these saw no significant warming for the next five years.

FL said: (Three) themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;

(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a matter for balanced scientific inquiry; and (

3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

FL said: One reason may be that many people picked up on the dodginess of the shift from "global warming" to "climate change."

Then there's the lack of significant warming since 1998, still the hottest year on record globally. What's more, that trend will continue if you believe scientists at the British Met Office, an agency sometimes described as Britain's NOAA.

FL said: So let's ask about one specific point Watts makes that McClanahan referred to. (If you've already answered this point, please refer me to it.) According to McClanahan,

At the "Watts Up With That" blog, meteorologist Anthony Watts found that search trends on Google for "global warming" and "climate change" have radically dropped off in recent years, while searches for "extreme weather" barely registered.

Are Watts or McClanahan wrong about that? And would you disagree with the reasons McClanahan offers for such?

The Climategate scandal of 2009 - in which scientists wrote back and forth on how to thwart freedom-of-information filings or manipulate data - was a major blow to the theory's credibility.

Then there's the lack of significant warming since 1998, still the hottest year on record globally.

What's more, that trend will continue if you believe scientists at the British Met Office, an agency sometimes described as Britain's NOAA. The Met created a minor flap recently when, over the Christmas holiday, it posted a new set of predictions coughed up by its computer models. Unlike the previous year's forecasts, these saw no significant warming for the next five years.

ksplawn said: Amazing how much the information you're basing your opinions on turns out to be assembled from quote-mines and factual inaccuracies. Perhaps you should take this revelation about their reliability into consideration.

You just might be a science denier if you attack the scientists instead of the data.

You just might be a science denier if you think that analysis of google trends is evidence.

You just might be a science denier if you never ever discuss any of the actual data (or maybe that's just because you lied about it being missing).

You just might be a science denier if you are obsessed about e-mails that you don't even understand.

You just might be a red neck if you are a science denier, but no necessarily.

j. biggs said:

ksplawn said: Amazing how much the information you're basing your opinions on turns out to be assembled from quote-mines and factual inaccuracies. Perhaps you should take this revelation about their reliability into consideration.

The probability of Floyd doing considering the reliability of his sources is approaching zero.

Idiot evaded:

Why haven’t any of these 16 scientists provided any credible evidence to show that global warming isn’t happening?

Why haven't you provided any evidence that what the 16 scientists said, was incorrect?

data in the hands of people who don’t know what they are looking at can be an enormous headache

Regarding climate change, there are five potentially distinct groups of weathercasters. Our 2010 survey indicated that: 54% of weathercasters nationwide were convinced that the climate is changing, 25% were unconvinced, and 20% were undecided. The findings from the current survey yielded a more nuanced picture. There appear to be five potentially distinct groups of weathercasters. Three groups convinced that the climate is changing, but with different views as to why – mostly human causes (19%), mostly natural causes (29%), and human and natural causes in more-or-less equal proportion (34%), as well as two distinctly smaller groups: those who are unconvinced (9%), or undecided (8%). "A National Survey of Television Meteorologists About Climate Change Education, June 30, 2011" -- George Mason University (Maibach et al.)

I've read the emails

Many Americans are skeptical about whether the world's weather is changing, but apparently the degree of skepticism varies systematically depending on what that change is called. According to a University of Michigan study published in the forthcoming issue of Public Opinion Quarterly, more people believe in "climate change" than in "global warming." "Wording matters," said Jonathon Schuldt, the lead author of the article about the study and a doctoral candidate in the U-M Department of Psychology... ...Overall, 74 percent of people thought the problem was real when it was referred to as climate change, while about 68 percent thought it was real when it was referred to as global warming. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/03/08/its.all.a.name.global.warming.vs.climate.change

Hypocrite For Jesus whined: Meanwhile, while we're never going to agree about global warming, I AM asking you to reconsider how the global warmers are using this phrase "science denier." Right now it means anybody who has any public doubts or dissents about global warming, no matter what their science credentials may be or how high they are. Sorry, I still don't trust folks who are able to automatically use the blanket term "science denier" to marginalize MIT atmospheric science professors (or even your local AMS meteorologist on TV) who happen to dissent from global warming. You shouldn't either. FL

FL said: Some of the Global Warmer scientists HAVE proved themselves to be untrustworthy, liars, fudgers, deleters. They were smart enough to delete incriminating evidence before the science cops got there, but such smartness doesn't impress me. FL

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “basing.” Do you mean less prone to stir up political loyalties (and thus provoke an emotional or tribal answer)? I’d agree with that.

But if you mean something like: its a simpler, more basic question, so we can’t assume ignorance on the part of the respondents, then I beg to differ. That is probably true in other 1st world countries, but our primary and secondary science education does not rank well. In 2009, we ranked 25th in math and 17th in science out of 34 studied countries. Ignorance of basic facts about the solar system is certainly on the table as an explanation for why 1/5 of surveyed US respondents would get the answer wrong

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Some of the Global Warmer scientists HAVE proved themselves to be untrustworthy, liars, fudgers, deleters. They were smart enough to delete incriminating evidence before the science cops got there, but such smartness doesn't impress me. FL

Heh. Were you there?

FL said: And, ummm, we (as in "all of us here") already KNOW why "global warming" was replaced with "climate change." When ya gotta sell something that people (including scientists) are expressing doubts about, you'll change that moniker in a heartbeat to boost your sales-pitch if at all possible.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/03/08/its.all.a.name.global.warming.vs.climate.change

Just like the man said: wording matters. Apparently nobody wants to be a global warmer anymore!

I do not trust the global warming movement, especially the media shills like NYT and libbie politicians like Obama. Maybe you trust them, maybe you believe everything they say, but I don't.

Some Global Warmer scientists are okay, just like the dissenter scientists...

... but frankly Climategate DID happen, the existence of remaining loose ends HAS been proven, (and with the release of thousands of NEW emails, the Climategate appears to be far from over).

Some of the Global Warmer scientists HAVE proved themselves to be untrustworthy, liars, fudgers, deleters. They were smart enough to delete incriminating evidence before the science cops got there, but such smartness doesn't impress me.

Meanwhile, while we're never going to agree about global warming, I AM asking you to reconsider how the global warmers are using this phrase "science denier." Right now it means anybody who has any public doubts or dissents about global warming, no matter what their science credentials may be or how high they are.

Sorry, I still don't trust folks who are able to automatically use the blanket term "science denier" to marginalize MIT atmospheric science professors (or even your local AMS meteorologist on TV) who happen to dissent from global warming. You shouldn't either.

apokryltaros said:

Henry J said:

He better hope that global warming is real,

Nobody with sense, education, and empathy would want global warming to be the case. (Not that this would apply to FL, of course, as he lacks at least one all of those qualities.)

There, fixed for you.

ksplawn said: Wrong is wrong, no matter who you are. Why should anybody's profession protect them from being called a denier when they are? What special deference do they get despite being wrong?

If you apply a sort of weird authoritarian homeopathy, where the fewer experts on your side, the more confident you get, you might be a science denier.

scienceavenger said: If you apply a sort of weird authoritarian homeopathy, where the fewer experts on your side, the more confident you get, you might be a science denier.

FL said: And here's a simple reason for you to avoid tactics like calling folks "science denier" -- the fact that you've got A LOT of regular scientists who simply dissent from the global warming sales-pitch. Example: http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore And indeed, just a year ago, 16 dissenting scientists wrote to the Wall Street Journal to bring up the point McClanahan brought up:

...those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

http://news.yahoo.com/16-scientists-declare-no-compelling-scientific-argument-drastic-183255794.html I'm looking at the list of 16 scientists right now, and it's very VERY hard to see how, for example, an MIT professor of atmospheric science can be called a "science denier." So you know, I think an honest layperson would have to say "I don't know" on the Global Warming religion. Refusing to convert doesn't automatically make you a science denier, even if the libbies at the NYT preach such things. FL

All of your appeals have been to non-scientists and what “we all know here.”

Of course, that same MIT professor of atmospheric science also happens to deny that smoking cigarettes is a cause of lung cancer.

FL, may I ask what else you've consulted to help put the WSJ editorial into context? Read anything from the mainstream climate scientists regarding it? Or did you just accept it and move on?

FL said:

Of course, that same MIT professor of atmospheric science also happens to deny that smoking cigarettes is a cause of lung cancer.

Which may put him out of the running for the next U.S. Surgeon General, but how does that invalidate the specific statements given by him and 15 other scientists in the WSJ? FL

Science-Hating Bigot For Jesus whined:

Of course, that same MIT professor of atmospheric science also happens to deny that smoking cigarettes is a cause of lung cancer.

Which may put him out of the running for the next U.S. Surgeon General, but how does that invalidate the specific statements given by him and 15 other scientists in the WSJ?

I’m looking at the list of 16 scientists right now, and it’s very VERY hard to see how, for example, an MIT professor of atmospheric science can be called a “science denier.”

Which may put him out of the running for the next U.S. Surgeon General, but how does that invalidate the specific statements given by him and 15 other scientists in the WSJ?

eric said: But if you mean something like: its a simpler, more basic question, so we can't assume ignorance on the part of the respondents, then I beg to differ. That is probably true in other 1st world countries, but our primary and secondary science education does not rank well. In 2009, we ranked 25th in math and 17th in science out of 34 studied countries. Ignorance of basic facts about the solar system is certainly on the table as an explanation for why 1/5 of surveyed US respondents would get the answer wrong.

Fl's list of 16 deniers at WSJ has been debunked at this site:http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html

The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness. Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them "luminaries" and "prominent scientists", the list is actually quite underwhelming. In fact, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. Nearly half of the list (at least 7 of 16) have received fossil fuel industry funding, and the list also includes an economist, a physician, a chemist, an aerospace engineer, and an astronaut/politician. These are apparently the best and brightest the climate denialists can come up with these days?................

Click over there for more on the year old WSJ article........

Charley Horse said: Fl's list of 16 deniers at WSJ has been debunked at this site:http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness. Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them "luminaries" and "prominent scientists", the list is actually quite underwhelming. In fact, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. Nearly half of the list (at least 7 of 16) have received fossil fuel industry funding, and the list also includes an economist, a physician, a chemist, an aerospace engineer, and an astronaut/politician. These are apparently the best and brightest the climate denialists can come up with these days?................ Click over there for more on the year old WSJ article........

Eric Finn said:

eric said: But if you mean something like: its a simpler, more basic question, so we can't assume ignorance on the part of the respondents, then I beg to differ. That is probably true in other 1st world countries, but our primary and secondary science education does not rank well. In 2009, we ranked 25th in math and 17th in science out of 34 studied countries. Ignorance of basic facts about the solar system is certainly on the table as an explanation for why 1/5 of surveyed US respondents would get the answer wrong.

eric, my namesake, harold already agreed with you regarding your statement. In the year 2009, the US held the 23rd position in sciences, according to the PISA evaluation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#Historical_tables And in all the reported areas, Americans were among the 74 listed top countries, and many times far ahead of Kyrkyzstan. That is not bad at all. There are 193 members in the United Nations only. Almost all the Nobel prizes in sciences go to American scientists. Or to scientists that did their work in American institutes. Of course, the Nobel Prize is not a good measure of the science literacy of the nation. However, it does tell something about the underlying structures. Science is denied everywhere. The patterns seem to come almost always from the US of the America.

Charley Horse said: Fl's list of 16 deniers at WSJ has been debunked at this site:http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness. Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them "luminaries" and "prominent scientists", the list is actually quite underwhelming. In fact, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. Nearly half of the list (at least 7 of 16) have received fossil fuel industry funding, and the list also includes an economist, a physician, a chemist, an aerospace engineer, and an astronaut/politician. These are apparently the best and brightest the climate denialists can come up with these days?................ Click over there for more on the year old WSJ article........

There is nothing new about putting out opposing links on both sides of the global warming debate.

Especially, it's not hard to put forth recent links that call attention rational and scientific reasons for doubt. Global Warmers ask for public trust but they've put out a lot of wrong stuff. It can be stuff like Climategate 2.0 or just plain stuff right outta the NASA press room.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Your faith in the Global Warming Gospel is absolute. Mine isn't.

Regarding the U.S. side of things, Here's a little recent something from CEI (the most thorough and specific debunkers of Al Gore's famous book and movie):

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/

You are Global Warmer True Believers. Obama and Gore are your patron deities. Me, I'm just kinda agnostic on it. SCIENCE, and some scientists, leads me to have doubts.

****

I'm not trying to change your minds, diminish your devotion, etc etc. I'm just saying that GW doubters aren't science deniers, and the Global Warmer scientists and politicians and shills have only themselves to blame for any doubts and doubters anyway. Replying to scientific dissent with stuff like "science denier" just says something's wrong with the GW gospel..

Look at Charley Horse's post there: He found that FOUR of the 16 WSJ scientists DID publish climate research in peer review journals. Yet he automatically labels THOSE as "deniers" too. Sheesh.

But I'm not picking on Charley per se. It's a staple tenet of the entire GW religion.

****

Finally, scientist Fred Singer, whom thou despiseth, estimated a year or so ago that as many as 40 percent of scientists harbor some doubts about Global Warming.

Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know if that's the exact number, but I know it IS a pretty significant amount, all told. They're not going away.

FL

FL said: Especially, it's not hard to put forth recent links that call attention rational and scientific reasons for doubt. Global Warmers ask for public trust but they've put out a lot of wrong stuff. It can be stuff like Climategate 2.0 or just plain stuff right outta the NASA press room. FL

Umm, that's "Climategate 2.0", Mike. The new stuff.

FL said: There is nothing new about putting out opposing links on both sides of the global warming debate. Especially, it's not hard to put forth recent links that call attention rational and scientific reasons for doubt. Global Warmers ask for public trust but they've put out a lot of wrong stuff. It can be stuff like Climategate 2.0 or just plain stuff right outta the NASA press room. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/ Your faith in the Global Warming Gospel is absolute. Mine isn't. Regarding the U.S. side of things, Here's a little recent something from CEI (the most thorough and specific debunkers of Al Gore's famous book and movie): http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/ You are Global Warmer True Believers. Obama and Gore are your patron deities. Me, I'm just kinda agnostic on it. SCIENCE, and some scientists, leads me to have doubts.

Unlike you FL, I consult the primary literature

In reference to some of the links presented above, try applying the algorithm presented here. In a sense, it's wrong to say that the denialists aren't playing with a full deck ...

You just might be a science denier if you think there are patron deities in science.

You just might be a science denier if you think that one loony attempting to refute a few minor points in a popular movie somehow represents a valid refutation of the primary literature.

You just might be a science denier if you just can't get you mind around the fact that everyone who is actually familiar with the evidence refuses to be convinced by your blatantly dishonest shenanigans.

So, FL, tell us, why do you think that the majority of scientists have not been convinced by the science-denying global warming skeptics?

Because you were told to accuse them of being a part of a devil-worshiping cult of evil?

DS said: You just might be a science denier if you think there are patron deities in science. You just might be a science denier if you think that one loony attempting to refute a few minor points in a popular movie somehow represents a valid refutation of the primary literature. You just might be a science denier if you just can't get you mind around the fact that everyone who is actually familiar with the evidence refuses to be convinced by your blatantly dishonest shenanigans.

FL said: Finally, scientist Fred Singer, whom thou despiseth, estimated a year or so ago that as many as 40 percent of scientists harbor some doubts about Global Warming.

Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know if that's the exact number, but I know it IS a pretty significant amount, all told. They're not going away. FL

If you take the word of same butt wipe who just made up crap about what some people might think instead of actually discussing the evidence, you just might be a science denier.

If you think every scientific theory is a theory in crisis, you just might be a science denier.

If you think that the fact that some people with a vested financial interest cannot be persuaded by evidence is evidence of anything but their bias, you just might be a science denier.

DS said: If you take the word of same butt wipe who just made up crap about what some people might think instead of actually discussing the evidence, you just might be a science denier. If you think every scientific theory is a theory in crisis, you just might be a science denier. If you think that the fact that some people with a vested financial interest cannot be persuaded by evidence is evidence of anything but their bias, you just might be a science denier.

scienceavenger said: Remember this moment. In 20 years (FL)'ll be embarrased that you contributed to our second-world status behind the then-energy-independent Chinese, if you have any sense of shame at all.

Science denial pops up in the weirdest places. I've been helping a team of archeologists and volunteers uncover a mammoth or two near where I live. The team was able to carbon-date a standing stump that lay on top of a pile of bones to 13,130 yrs bce. A very curious townsperson asked me if that was before or after the Flood?

It was a great teaching moment.

Until the person said,"So, the mammoth missed the Ark."

Seriously.

-jimnorth

FL said: There is nothing new about putting out opposing links on both sides of the global warming debate. Especially, it's not hard to put forth recent links that call attention rational and scientific reasons for doubt. Global Warmers ask for public trust but they've put out a lot of wrong stuff. It can be stuff like Climategate 2.0 or just plain stuff right outta the NASA press room. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Your faith in the Global Warming Gospel is absolute. Mine isn't.

I'm not trying to change your minds, diminish your devotion, etc etc. I'm just saying that GW doubters aren't science deniers, and the Global Warmer scientists and politicians and shills have only themselves to blame for any doubts and doubters anyway.

Finally, scientist Fred Singer, whom thou despiseth, estimated a year or so ago that as many as 40 percent of scientists harbor some doubts about Global Warming. Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know if that's the exact number, but I know it IS a pretty significant amount, all told. They're not going away.

FL said: There is nothing new about putting out opposing links on both sides of the global warming debate. Especially, it's not hard to put forth recent links that call attention rational and scientific reasons for doubt. Global Warmers ask for public trust but they've put out a lot of wrong stuff. It can be stuff like Climategate 2.0 or just plain stuff right outta the NASA press room. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/ Your faith in the Global Warming Gospel is absolute. Mine isn't. Regarding the U.S. side of things, Here's a little recent something from CEI (the most thorough and specific debunkers of Al Gore's famous book and movie): http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/ You are Global Warmer True Believers. Obama and Gore are your patron deities. Me, I'm just kinda agnostic on it. SCIENCE, and some scientists, leads me to have doubts. **** I'm not trying to change your minds, diminish your devotion, etc etc. I'm just saying that GW doubters aren't science deniers, and the Global Warmer scientists and politicians and shills have only themselves to blame for any doubts and doubters anyway. Replying to scientific dissent with stuff like "science denier" just says something's wrong with the GW gospel.. Look at Charley Horse's post there: He found that FOUR of the 16 WSJ scientists DID publish climate research in peer review journals. Yet he automatically labels THOSE as "deniers" too. Sheesh. But I'm not picking on Charley per se. It's a staple tenet of the entire GW religion. **** Finally, scientist Fred Singer, whom thou despiseth, estimated a year or so ago that as many as 40 percent of scientists harbor some doubts about Global Warming. Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know if that's the exact number, but I know it IS a pretty significant amount, all told. They're not going away. FL

ksplawn said:

FL said: There is nothing new about putting out opposing links on both sides of the global warming debate. Especially, it's not hard to put forth recent links that call attention rational and scientific reasons for doubt. Global Warmers ask for public trust but they've put out a lot of wrong stuff. It can be stuff like Climategate 2.0 or just plain stuff right outta the NASA press room. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Spencer and Braswell was so thoroughly bad that the publishing journal's editor resigned in protest after castigating his journal for the failure of peer-review that let it through with their stamp of approval on it. He also had a ton of words to use against Spencer for promoting the paper with false claims about its conclusions to the public, and against outlets like Forbes for letting fossil-fuel think-tank bloggers hype it up with even more false claims and imaginary connections to NASA. Spencer and the denialists lied about the paper to the public. The editor of the journal felt betrayed and used, so he resigned in hopes of saving face for the small, young journal instead of letting it get a reputation for passing junk science by motivated ideologues. It has also been ably rebutted more than once in the peer-reviewed literature, and there are plenty of debunkings of it written in an accessible, pop-sci level by other scientists. The basic gist is that SB did not capture the differences in models that they were trying to pass off as being found, and they selectively hid model results that disagreed with their conclusions. Their own model of atmospheric physics does not conserve energy according to the laws of thermodynamics (as a Creationist you should know all about that mistake, right?) and generally doesn't work to model reality because it has too many freely-adjustable parameters. More than enough to fit an elephant and make its trunk wiggle. Of course, Spencer thinks that this is all the result of "IPCC Gatekeepers," despite the fact that nobody at the IPCC had anything to do with the reaction to his paper, and he has not published a counter-argument against his critics. Despite his paper being widely read because of the extraordinary claims it made, the general opinion of climate experts is that it has no extraordinary evidence to back them up and is basically worthless. The simplest explanation is that his paper was just that bad. In other words, he has totally failed to make a convincing argument in that paper; it was so bad that it basically killed Spencer's credibility until he can prove himself capable of doing honest science again. And it's not that they just disagree with him; they showed why he is wrong. That's what it takes to make a point in science. Spencer is apparently incapable of doing this anymore, despite his formerly respectable scientific career. The fact that, unlike the CRU researchers, Spencer and Braswell actually did hide and manipulate data in their paper should set your dander on end. The fact that their own model was so bad it implied six TRILLION degree temperature changes a thousand years ago should have you frothing at the mouth for being duped by these same hypocrites who dismiss legit climate models with hand-waving. These people are everything bad that they've accused other climate scientists of being. I've written up a longer and more involved comment post about Roy Spencer here that I think explains his basic problem in greater detail and clarity. What's a bigger issue to me is that you still think his paper was worth considering, despite the year of solid debunking it has received inside and outside of the scientific literature. Why didn't anybody tell you that it was already known to be junk? I suspect it's because you're not listening to the people who would acknowledge this. As I've said before when pointing out serious accuracy problems with the sources you use, they're not trustworthy. I'm not going to spend all week fact-checking every piece of dreck you link, so let's cut to the chase: stop listening to those liars and idiots, they are steering you wrong. You are being duped and conned by liars and bullshitters, as everybody here has been able to prove. There is no honor in defending them and pretending they might still have a point. If you want to make a case against the other 97% of climate experts who agree on AGW, try and find some honest sources, for your own sake.

Your faith in the Global Warming Gospel is absolute. Mine isn't.

My confidence in the general consensus of the world's climate experts is based on how successful they are at describing the world's climate. Why do you put so much credibility into the tiny minority who try to denounce the consensus, yet can't marshal any scientific evidence for their position? Shouldn't you put more weight in those that have shown genuine skepticism and a proper scientific attitude about this?

I'm not trying to change your minds, diminish your devotion, etc etc. I'm just saying that GW doubters aren't science deniers, and the Global Warmer scientists and politicians and shills have only themselves to blame for any doubts and doubters anyway.

And yet the only thing you've been able to prove is that all the sources you rely on are wrong. You have never once shown us anything from a mainstream scientists of ANY political affiliation, only bullshit from right-wing bullshitters (usually through a think-tank's partisan filter; some of the sources you cited are literally paid by fossil fuels interests to promote their junk science). I've been linking you to actual papers written by scientists, and public blog posts written by scientists, and guess what? These are not blind Al Gore worshipers. Some of them are staunchly conservative in their politics (Barry Bickmore, for example; James Hansen is also an old-school Republican, and so is Richard Alley who you can see in this American Geophysical Union lecture explaining the importance of CO2 on temperature based on real data). The only person appealing to shills here is you. Nothing I've cited comes from people paid to be "alarmist."

Finally, scientist Fred Singer, whom thou despiseth, estimated a year or so ago that as many as 40 percent of scientists harbor some doubts about Global Warming. Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know if that's the exact number, but I know it IS a pretty significant amount, all told. They're not going away.

Fred Singer was also one of the tobacco companies' paid shills back in the day, and he quickly became a paid shill for fossil fuel companies. I thought you didn't want to listen to shills? He has not done any actual science for decades, and he has zero data to use as the "estimate" for secret dissenters. Meanwhile, actual working scientists have tried to settle the question of scientific opinion on climate change. The number of dissenters doesn't come anywhere near 40% in those rigorous, scientific expeditions. You will have to give up the idea that 40% of scientists secretly doubt AGW. The figure is likely less than 20% for all scientists, and almost certainly less than 5% for those that actually study the climate. That is the perspective you need to work from here.

I don't know that Spencer is an actual Young Earther. I've only seen him write about or sign letters endorsing a vague anti-evolution position and endorsing things like Intelligent Design.

ksplawn said: I don't know that Spencer is an actual Young Earther. I've only seen him write about or sign letters endorsing a vague anti-evolution position and endorsing things like Intelligent Design.

OK, I think FL's line of "thinking" (I use the word loosely) is clear, so any more comments by him are off to the BW to join Byers' incoherent nonsense.

FL said:

Unlike you FL, I consult the primary literature

Sure. Just like CEI's Marlo Lewis Jr. consulted primary literature when he famously dissected Al Gore's Inconvienent Truth. http://cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf But I noticed long time ago that it didn't make any difference to Global Warmers. It never does. The NASA-based link kinda bounced off too, I noticed. FL

Isn't YEC global warming denial somehow connected with the flood, and the fact they claim there was only one post flood ice age ?

If you can't discuss global warming without mentioning Al Gore, you might be a science denialist.

Ian Derthal said: Isn't YEC global warming denial somehow connected with the flood, and the fact they claim there was only one post flood ice age ?

scienceavenger said: If you can't discuss global warming without mentioning Al Gore, you might be a science denialist.

Kevin B said:

Ian Derthal said: Isn't YEC global warming denial somehow connected with the flood, and the fact they claim there was only one post flood ice age ?

If they are arguing against global warming because God promised not to cause another flood, they've missed the point that He did *not* say that that He'd step in to prevent Men creating a flood all by themselves.

Global warming won't put mountains (or even highlands) underwater. ;)

Henry J said: Global warming won't put mountains (or even highlands) underwater. ;)

More on religious "science"...
Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

On the blissful religious science ignorance…:

USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind

Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on science items surveyed and analyzed by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive “scientific” publications and activities.

On my next birthday I’ll be 88-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/

Gene Ray, is that you?

It takes a change of culture, of the mode of reactions to circumstances, to effect a change of habit. Genetics is the progeny of culture, not vice versa. This applies in ALL fields of human activities, including economy, to ALL personal and social behavioral aspects.

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

On the blissful religious science ignorance…:

USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind

Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on science items surveyed and analyzed by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive “scientific” publications and activities.

On my next birthday I’ll be 88-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Energy-Mass Poles Of The Universe
http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/