Science denied: Why does doubt persist?

Oct 12, 2012 by Phil Primack
“As we’ve leaped forward and conquered biological frontiers on so many fronts, all of life science now sees that evolution is the fundamental thread that holds together the whole picture of life on earth,” says Sean B. Carroll. Credit: iStock

The sign in front of the tall display case at the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History lures visitors to "meet one of your oldest relatives." Inside stands a morganucodon, a mouse-like animal from the Late Triassic period, 210 million years ago. "A close relative of this tiny creature was the first mammal on earth," the sign says. "Its DNA was passed on to billions of descendants, including you."

Nearby, hominid skulls, ancient tools and maps of early migrations spell out humanity's deep past. Surely, such a mix of strong visuals and clear explanations brings the to life for young minds, right? "You'd be surprised," says a guide who has answered countless questions since the collection, called the Hall of , opened two years ago. "I've heard visitors call evolution a secular conspiracy to eliminate God. They tell me that they bring their kids here to show them how ridiculous the other side is."

The facts of evolution may be written in stone and bone and DNA, but close to half the American public "accepts a biblical creationist account of the ," according to the for People & the Press. Evolution is just one front in a broader conflict between science and individual belief. Climate change is another: according to a 2009 Pew survey, about half of Americans doubt that human activity contributes to global warming, despite strong scientific evidence that it does. Smart and caring parents, swayed by a purported though discredited link between vaccines and autism, are refusing to immunize their children. Other issues are also returning to the hot-button table, among them fluoridation of public drinking water.

While doubters of evolution are often linked to the political or religious right, the rejection of science knows no social, economic or ideological bounds. Fifty years ago, the opposition to fluoridation came from the John Birch Society and other right-wing groups that equated the practice with Communism. These days the charge is led by left-leaning organic foodies and eco-activist organizations such as the Sierra Club and change.org. Anti-vaccine sentiment is highest among the better educated, the more affluent and the more environmentally conscious. Looking to find higher than normal rates of vaccine noncompliance? "Go to any Whole Foods market," one public health official remarked.

A few Metro stops from the Smithsonian Institution, Sean B. Carroll, a 1983 graduate of the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, is working to change the country's often distorted conversation about science. An evolutionary developmental biologist and author of books that engagingly explain evolution, DNA and other science to lay readers (he is also a regular talking head for science documentaries), Carroll was recently named vice president for science education at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. It's his job to find ways of fostering public respect for, understanding of and enthusiasm about science.

Nobody knows more about public disrespect for science than another Tufts alumnus, Paul Offit, A72. Offit is chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a co-inventor of the anti-diarrhea vaccine RotaTeq, one of those vaccines supposedly linked to autism. He is the author, most recently, of Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. Offit's outspokenness has made him the target of vaccine opponents, their invective occasionally punctuated with physical threats (as detailed in a Wired cover story in 2009). The abundant science that backs up his confidence in vaccines has done nothing to change their minds.

Stories People Tell

As a society, we are indeed a contradictory lot. We welcome, even demand, medical and other advances from our scientists, yet we choose not to believe those same experts when their research rebuts notions we hold dear. This denial of science is certainly grist for psychology journals. But does it really matter?

Carroll thinks it matters a lot. "Otherwise, why would a happy scientist with a very fulfilling research career bounce between Madison, Wisc., and Washington, D.C.?" he asks. Instead of working in his genetics laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, where he is a professor, he has begun to spend most of his time at the campus-like offices of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, just outside of Washington. Carroll has a long history with the institute as a principal investigator, but he now has access to its vast resources for his broader mission of bringing science to the public.

His ability to bridge hard science and popular culture is evident from the artifacts in his institute office. In one corner is a detailed model of HMS Beagle, the ship that carried Charles Darwin on his epic five-year voyage nearly two centuries ago. A nearby wall displays a poster for the 1980 movie Airplane, autographed by Carroll's friend Jerry Zucker, the comedy's executive producer. "Be careful where you hang this," wrote Zucker. "I don't want you to lose your funding."

Yet Carroll's most formidable advantage in the fight against science denialism may be his sense of what makes people tick. Humans, he says, are creatures of stories: "It's why we read books and go to the movies and hang out at the water cooler." In fact, he says, the power of stories—even wrong or misguided ones—is such that "people who refuse to get vaccines are maybe not to be blamed. There's no one regulating how much truth and how much bullshit is out there."

Instead of bemoaning the situation, he says, the scientific community must counter the b.s. with reliable, compelling stories of its own. And with that in mind, he aims "to produce inspiring, content-rich films about great science and great scientists." The Hughes Institute, historically low-profile and focused on research, is getting into the film business.

Carroll acknowledges, however, that in the business of spinning stories, science is at a competitive disadvantage. "Science is in an asymmetric fight to stick to the rules of professional conduct," he explains. "We are about evidence and weighing evidence. Because we are not going to issue statements that could smack us in the face, we can't use the media in the same way."

Cognitive Bias, Not Reason

Paul Offit's experience with the vaccine furor underscores this difficulty. "All I have on my side is reason," he says. "I keep getting asked if I believe that autism is associated with vaccines. It doesn't matter what I believe. All that matters is what the data show."

Something else tilts the playing field toward those untroubled by an allegiance to scientific rigor: "What if the message of one story is more appealing than another?" Carroll asks. "If you have been told that you have been specifically created by a higher being with some plan for your life, that can be a bit more reassuring than thinking that you're just one of billions of genetic combinations that has come about at this moment in time after millions of years of hominid evolution, with no plan and no explicit purpose."

Science is waging an uphill battle against the phenomenon known as cognitive bias—which Seth Mnookin, a Boston-based writer, defines as "a set of unconscious mechanisms that convince us that it is our feelings about a situation and not the facts that represent the truth." The Panic Virus, his book debunking alleged links between vaccines and autism, takes a hard look at such biases.

In an interview, Mnookin seconds Carroll's remarks. "The common thread with hot-button issues such as climate change, vaccines and evolution is that the arguments that go against scientific evidence are typically more satisfying," he says. "You are never going to convince broad swaths of the public by using data. It's not how the human brain works. With autism, for example, science can't really tell us much more than we knew a decade ago. All science can say is that it is not caused by X or Y, while the other side says, I know exactly why autism is happening and how you can make it better." For parents desperate to protect their children against an enigmatic and devastating neurological disorder, which side holds more appeal?

David Ropeik, a former TV journalist whose latest book is How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts, has become a student of "confirmation bias"—people's tendency to give greater credence to arguments that support their beliefs and grasp for ways to discredit facts that don't. "We like to think that we're smart, rational beings, but most of our perceptions are subjective and powerfully influenced by instinct and emotion," Ropeik says.

And in today's world, such biases get a power boost from the Internet. Support for cherished opinions is not only in the eye of the beholder but at the fingertips of the Googler, as Mnookin notes in The Panic Virus. "One of the first effects of [the] hyper-democratization of data was to unmoor information from the context required to understand it," he writes. "On the Internet, facts float about freely and are recombined more according to the preferences of intuition than the rules of cognition: Mercury is toxic, toxins can cause development disorders, mercury is in vaccines; ergo, vaccines cause autism."

Offit voices a similar complaint. "A whole group of people believe they can Google the word vaccine and know as much as any doctor," he says. "These are often upper-middle-class people who are in control, who are their own bosses. In this postmodern thinking, anyone's attitude and belief is as valid as anyone else's simply because they have it."

In Dunedin, Fla., a recent (and unsuccessful) movement to halt fluoridation of the public water supply drew strength from online claims like this one, posted by change.org: "Current and historical studies document that non-naturally occurring fluoride water additives cause harmful illness and disease to adults and children."

One of the town's anti-fluoridation leaders was Bree Cheatham, who helps run the local food co-op and is active in progressive causes. She has a ready response when asked about decades of research that have shown fluoride to be safe and effective. "With any issue, it goes back to corporations with lots of money," she says. "They are not looking at humanity or community—they are looking at profit. Science doesn't matter, because I know who pays for it. I don't want it, and I don't need to know about it." Never mind that the Centers for Disease Control has recognized water fluoridation as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century," ranked between family planning and recognition of tobacco use as a health hazard.

Doubt in the DNA

Cheatham is right about one thing: science should not always be accepted without question. Some scientists allow funding or other non-empirical agendas to taint their research. They may adjust data and findings to cater to corporate sponsors. Or they may fail to speak up when big business withholds inconvenient findings about a product—as in the case of Vioxx, the prescription painkiller that Merck marketed for years, all the while concealing data about the increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

Carroll knows that such tainted research goes on, and he accepts that skepticism is in America's DNA. "Doubt goes way back in this nation," he says. "The government lied about Vietnam, and politicians lie about lying. Corporations have lied about what they dump into rivers, and tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies have lied. There's good reason to be skeptical about information we get." But, he adds, "you have to be discriminating in the authorities you're going to doubt."

Offit, for example, makes a poor target for charges of corporate bias. Though he did receive compensation when Children's Hospital sold the RotaTeq patent, he makes no money from the sale of any vaccine. And far from being an all-vaccines-are-good absolutist, he was the only member of the CDC's advisory panel to oppose a proposal to give smallpox vaccine to Americans shortly after 9/11 as an antidote to real or imagined terrorist threats. At the time, he felt that the potential risk from the vaccine outweighed the danger of citizens getting smallpox.

Nor is he a pure apologist for big pharma, which he agrees "can act unethically and even illegally," although when it comes to vaccines, he feels the industry has been generally ethical. But none of that prevented Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—speaking at a 2008 anti-vaccine rally in Washington—from calling Offit a "poster child for the term 'biostitute.'"

The involvement of celebrities like Kennedy, magnified by social media, only intensifies many of the influences behind science denialism. The model and actress Jenny McCarthy, whose son has been diagnosed with autism, regularly reinforces the cognitive biases that lead parents to blame the disorder on childhood vaccines. Says Offit, "She gets on TV and believes she is an autism expert, but she is an expert on her son. I don't try to change her mind. I can only hope to influence other people who may be influenced by her."

The repercussions of ignoring scientific evidence can be grave. Offit cites the example of Apple's founder and CEO, Steve Jobs, who died last October of pancreatic cancer at the age of fifty-six. Several sources, including Jobs' biographer Walter Isaacson, contend that Jobs put off potentially lifesaving cancer surgery for nine months after his diagnosis in 2003, choosing instead to pursue alternative medicine.

"Jobs learns that he has a neuroendocrine tumor," says Offit. "That is an eminently treatable tumor with early surgery. Jobs, however, is a smart guy with a lot of resources. He is a Buddhist and vegetarian, and he knows better. So he decides to drink a lot of fruit juices and does other alternative medicine. By the time he has surgery, it's too late. The tumor has metastasized, and he is on a downward spiral that ultimately kills him. I am amazed that Steve Jobs made that decision, and you and I can argue that it was not reasonable, but that was his choice." Such disregard of hard facts "is worse than know-nothingism," Offit observes. "It's like thinking you know something, when you don't."

Danger Ahead

Science denialism works its harm on a larger scale as well. For instance, when parents, driven by baseless fears, resist vaccinating their kids, the wall of immunity that has kept measles, whooping cough and other childhood diseases at bay for decades can break down. In some geographic regions, that is happening already.

"We are starting to see outbreaks of measles bigger than they were in 1996," Offit says. "California has had the biggest outbreak of whooping cough since 1947." France and other European nations also report more measles cases. Rebecca Martin, head of the Office for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases and Immunization at the World Health Organization, is worried. "There's been a buildup of children who have not been immunized over the years," she explained in an Associated Press interview last year. "When you have enough people who have not been immunized, then outbreaks can occur."

Ropeik, the author on risk, speculates that such events may be the hard slap needed to bring public officials to their senses. "People who oppose vaccines will not be changed, no matter the evidence, but they are putting themselves and society at risk," he says. "So government's role is to step in and, in the case of vaccinations, make it harder for people to opt out, which you can now do in many states by simply saying you have a philosophical opposition. You should have to prove a real religious exception. And if your kid is not vaccinated, he or she can't go on that weekend trip to Washington during measles season."

The dangers of rejecting science are nowhere more apparent than in our country's stalled progress on climate change. Evidence is strong that the planet is indeed warming, and that such warming will have real consequences. Evidence is also strong that human activity contributes to warming. Nevertheless, critics persist in the belief that climate scientists are driven by ideology instead of research and that they are trying to mislead the public for political purposes.

But the wages of science denialism are not always obvious. According to Carroll, Americans' resistance to the theory of evolution, while less noxious than measles outbreaks or climate woes, has had a real impact.

"Thirty years ago," he says, "there was not much interest in evolution within the life sciences community. Life scientists were interested in biological mechanisms, but they were studying them without an evolutionary context. Now it's a different ballgame. As we've leaped forward and conquered biological frontiers on so many fronts, all of life science now sees that evolution is the fundamental thread that holds together the whole picture of life on earth." But public education has not yet caught up to that reality. Evolution is still "under taught and underemphasized."

Science denialism could have serious economic consequences, Carroll argues. "If we don't value science and education, there is not a lot of incentive for people to pursue those fields, which means we will see less implementation of knowledge in our public policy. We'll have forfeited an edge in science that the world has envied for sixty years."

Americans' resistance toward science is hardly new. Witness the 1925 "monkey trial," in which John Scopes, a Tennessee biology teacher, was prosecuted for the crime of teaching evolution. What's different today is that the nation is infinitely more dependent on science. That makes it all the more important, Carroll says, for today's schoolchildren—tomorrow's scientists, engineers, researchers, parents and voters—to learn the centrality of evolution and other science to how the world works and humans develop.

Carroll aims to give vivid form to such lessons in the educational videos he is overseeing on evolution and other topics. The Hughes film production unit will spend $60 million over the next five years. ("I'm putting Howard's money where my mouth is," Carroll deadpans.) Under his creative stamp, he promises there will be no talking heads, no dull graphics, just great storytelling. "Teachers deserve all the help we can give them," he says.

Explore further: Rosetta comet-landing is Science's 2014 breakthrough

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Vaccines and autism: Many hypotheses, but no correlation

Jan 30, 2009

An extensive new review summarizes the many studies refuting the claim of a link between vaccines and autism. The review, in the February 15, 2009 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases and now available online, looks at the ...

Lessons from the vaccine-autism wars

May 27, 2009

Researchers long ago rejected the theory that vaccines cause autism, yet many parents don't believe them. Can scientists bridge the gap between evidence and doubt?

Do vaccines cause autism, asthma and diabetes?

Jun 11, 2008

Almost 70% of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children do so because they believe vaccines may cause harm. Indeed vaccines have been blamed for causing asthma, autism, diabetes, and many other conditions--most of which ...

Vaccine and autism debate masks real problem

Aug 22, 2012

The bitter debate over whether vaccines cause autism is masking real problems with the modern inoculation schedule and encouraging a growing number of parents to refuse recommended vaccines for their children, ...

Will autism fraud report be a vaccine booster?

Jan 06, 2011

(AP) -- This week more shame was heaped upon the discredited British researcher whose work gave rise to the childhood-vaccines-cause-autism movement, as a prominent medical journal published a report that the man had faked his data. But will ...

Why are Internet anti-vaccine messages dangerous

Jul 19, 2011

Evidence has long shown routine vaccines to be safe and effective, but a growing community of critics still claims that they pose more danger than the diseases they prevent. A Google search of "vaccine," for example, produces ...

Recommended for you

Study: Alcatraz inmates could have survived escape

Dec 17, 2014

The three prisoners who escaped from Alcatraz in one of the most famous and elaborate prison breaks in U.S. history could have survived and made it to land, scientists concluded in a recent study.

User comments : 150

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nyscof
1.6 / 5 (25) Oct 12, 2012
Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing

More than 4,176 professionals (including 341 dentists and 531 MD's) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluori...nt/text/

In 2006, a National Research Council expert panel published a fluoride report which revealed that fluoride, even at low doses added to water supplies, can be especially harmful to the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies, seniors and people who drink high amounts of water. They also revealed critical fluoride safety studies have never been done and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lower IQ are plausible.

Thirty-four human studies now link fluoride to lowered IQ, some at levels considered safe in the US. See: http://www.fluori...q-facts/
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (30) Oct 12, 2012
The article begins by attacking religion, moves on to AGW, vaccination and water fluoridation. The thread is always about belief in evolution, anthropogenic global warming, safety of vaccination and water fluoridation. Any doubt is relegated to cognitive bias. Compelling compliance and methods of increasing belief are discussed.

What the article fails to address is why people should suspend their disbelief and accept the dogma of the author.

Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal, should be resisted. Rational and reasoning people rightly resist dogma.
chromosome2
4.9 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
The idea that our beliefs should be based only on empirical evidence and sound reason does not constitute dogma. Even if you wish to redefine the word that way, I support it. I didn't even consider science for answering life's biggest questions until *after* I had read and rejected the Bible at the age of 21. I was never raised believing that once-saved-always-saved stuff (I think a direct reading of the new testament rules that out conclusively). Fact is, you've got bigger concerns than truth when you're trying not to go to hell. Any doctrine that makes the conclusion more important than the method renders the mind useless on the frontier of human discovery.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
@dogbert:
PartA)I would highly suggest that you re-read the article (more carefully this time)- without letting your personal biased preconceptions interpret the text for you. He is defending science, not attacking religion. The difference is in what he is focusing on in his arguments.
1)"Compelling compliance and methods of increasing belief are discussed." & 2)"What the article fails to address is why people should suspend their disbelief and accept the dogma of the author."
What are you on about? 1)was all that the article was about. A discussion about why people prefer to doubt, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, and the fallout that tends to happen when enough people ignore scientific findings because of personal bias. Dogma? That is a religious term: http://dictionary...se/dogma , that ignores science. Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal, should be resisted. " Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
@dogbert:
Part B) As for the vaccine "issue", that's been debunked:
http://www.disabi...s/11910/
He was in it for the money.
http://abcnews.go...12550329
Best Regards, DH66
Deathclock
5 / 5 (17) Oct 12, 2012
Doubt persists largely because the general public is completely uneducated when it comes to science. Most of our public schools do a TERRIBLE job teaching science to children, we teach them what we consider to be facts, when we should be teaching them the methodology and philosophy behind the scientific method. We should be training them to be critical thinkers, to be skeptics... not to memorize facts and figures. The problem is the fundamentalists treat this like a war... this is not an exaggeration, I have seen it with my own eyes... they deliberately plant operatives in all levels of government to subvert the work of scientists in the name of their God. We have bio teachers in the south who do not believe in evolution, I have spoken with one who is a friend of my family at length about it. We have congressman on the house science committee who think evolution and big bang theory are deceptions by Satan and have STATED this publicly. This is a war, and they are waging it better.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2012
Deathclock,
The problem is the fundamentalists treat this like a war...


This article begins by attacking religion. Note that the author does not consider himself a fundamentalist, but his actions are indistinguishable from any religion attacking any other religion.

Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal should be resisted.
peter09
5 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
----
"Not because these phenomena are ignored or even denied - but because of lack of peer-reviewed studies disproving these phenomena in experimental way"
-----
One of the problems is that people do not grasp that you cannot prove a negative, this comes out as the 'prove xxxx does not happen/exist'.

The onus of proof is on the 'positive' and results need to be capable of being reliably repeated or demonstrated. Much of the fringe beliefs around just do not grasp these fact.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2012
Not because these phenomena are ignored or even denied - but because of lack of peer-reviewed studies disproving these phenomena in experimental way, i.e. not only ideologically.

You may notice that for ALL the things you cite peer reviewed publication sexist that show they do not work? Dhere is no 'denial'-stance in science. There is simply a: "it's been tried and shown to be crap/hoax/ineffective - let's move on and do something useful"-stance.

Ideology is what those that still cling to these bunk 'sciences' exhibit despite these findings.

That's the point of the scientific method. You find out something works: you go with it.
You find out something doesn't work: and you go with that result, too.

The 'fringe sciences' forget the second part.

This article begins by attacking religion.

Where is the attack? It begins with a factual account of a the experience of a museum guide. And a factual account of how many Americans believe in evolution.
SoylentGrin
5 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
This article begins by attacking religion.

The article begins by describing a visit to a natural history museum displaying evidence for evolution. If you consider museums to be attacks on religion, you're not going to get very far in conversation. Any conversation.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (17) Oct 12, 2012
I thought science was all about doubt. Science is a continuing process of discovery and nothing should be accepted without data.
Even Einstein is doubted as experiments are conducted to verify or refute his theories.
The science community does a horrible job of communicating to the public. Each week some study is published stating something is bad for you and next week a different study says its ok. It doesn't take long for all scientific proclamations to be doubted.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
The sentence "I've heard visitors call evolution a secular conspiracy to eliminate God." is not about museum, but about subject of religion.

So? It's a factual account. Since when is a factual account of something someone else said of what he heard someone else say an 'attack'?

If I hear a kid say that they heard their older brother say he doesn't believe in Santa...is that an attack on anyone who believes in Santa?

when it ignores the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel for twenty

Google. It wasn't ignored. It was tested. Didn't work. End of story. That you continually imagine that it was ignored doesn't alter the fact that it WASN'T ignored.
peter09
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
One of the problems is that people do not grasp that you cannot prove a negative This is common fallacy. You cannot prove the negative only in general sense (we cannot prove, that "no unicorn ever lived in the whole Universe"). But of course, the absence of unicorn existing in some limited spatial and temporal scale can be checked quite reliably. For example we are perfectly sure, that no unicorn lived at the New York in the last decade.

After all, it's just the mainstream physicists, who are so perfectly sure, that the cold fusion CANNOT exist - not their opponents. It's evident, when some finding could threat the jobs and salaries in existing research, then the scientists are willing to violate their own paradigms quite easily. The "skeptical" stance of mainstream scientists is actually driven mostly with employment rule: if you give them enough of money without threatening the rest of their community, then the scientists will support and research whatever nonsense you
peter09
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
Sorry - somewhere along the line I screwed up my last comment - apologies everyone. I cannot seem to edit it either... :-(
peter09
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
One of the problems is that people do not grasp that you cannot prove a negative
This is common fallacy. You cannot prove the negative only in general sense (we cannot prove, that "no unicorn ever lived in the whole Universe"). But of course, the absence of unicorn existing in some limited spatial and temporal scale can be checked quite reliably. For example we are perfectly sure, that no unicorn lived at the New York in the last decade.

But we only have your word for this - there may have been a unicorn in New York in the last decade - after all:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
Progressives hate doubt because they want unity of thought, action, and believe. Except for the Progressive elite, as they are special and smarter than the rest of us.

Science IS all about testing, questioning, doubting, verifying. When you can't doubt Evolution, Evolution becomes a religion.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
freethinking,
Science IS all about testing, questioning, doubting, verifying. When you can't doubt Evolution, Evolution becomes a religion.


Precisely. Well stated.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2012
Science is not above the issues the rest of society experiences, it's just many different people with many different goals and motivations. Science is just as fallible as any other segment of society.

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein

And there is plenty of evidence to question the safety of vaccines and fluoride, and whether evolution or climate science is "settled". The fact one is called a "denier" because they don't accept the various dogma of modern science is decidedly unscientific. Heretics be damned, even in the 21st century.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
"Science denied"

I do not accept the premise of the title. Science is not denied, but much of it is doubted.

The author (deliberately) avoided the most glaring reasons why certain science and scientists are doubted - among these are money, bias, and association (as in being linked to radical environmentalism).

After reading the article, you would think that all scientists are pure as the wind-driven snow and that the problem lies with the general public - but I think we all know better.

Maybe the author needs to study the effect a lack of credibility and integrity amongst scientists has on people's perception of science itself. The question is: could he conduct such a study in an unbiased manner??? I doubt it.
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
What the author is talking about is doubt in the face of an overwhelming abundance of evidence, hence the reason he chose the examples he did. He touches on a few instances where the general public has been duped or screwed over by various corporate/government entities as the reasons behind conformation bias. He is correct. Behind all the confirmation bias on this site from each and every one of us is an inherent lack of trust in the information we are being provided by the side that goes against our beliefs, and it takes alot for anyone to question their beliefs. Gotta love human nature.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2012
From rubberman's post:

"overwhelming abundance of evidence"

People do not trust the validity of the "evidence", because we do not/can not trust the motives of the scientist who gathered the evidence.

"He touches on a few instances where the general public has been duped or screwed over by various corporate/government entities"

He did not mention any occurance where rigged "science" duped/screwed over the general public ie spotted owl hoax.

"Behind all the confirmation bias on this site from each and every one of us is an inherent lack of trust in the information we are being provided by the side that goes against our beliefs, and it takes alot for anyone to question their beliefs."

Agreed. But living/suffering through the spotted owl scam left a permanent mark on me that spills over into every "science" that aims to disrupt economic well-being.

"Gotta love human nature."

Agreed.
Peteri
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2012
China, India and other developing nations will look-on and laugh up their sleeves as the US descends into a third-rate country due to an increasing lack of adequately trained scientists and engineers that are supported and respected by society!
nappy
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
Just like with global warming, "science" is often used to promote political goals and is not science at all. THe more science is missused and miss stated, the moore skepticism will grow. Fluoride is a case in point,. Many are subjected to toxic levels of fluorides as a result of fluoridated water, fluoridated toothpaste and fluoridated mouthwash. Fluorine is a rather reactive and toxic substance. How much do we need? I am thinking it is little to none. Our tooth problems are related to too much sugar, not too little fluoride.
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
The idiots have taken over... we are plunging into an intellectual dark age on this website. When I first started posting here years ago, under a different account name btw, most comments were reasonably well informed and good discussions were common. Since that time I have seen a shocking growth in the number of people who are here for the sole reason to disparage science and promote ignorance and irrational thought. It is disheartening to say the least... it has affected how often I come here, and how often I post comments even more so.
Plotz
5 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
I'm with Deathclock. Wow. There is no end to the breathtaking stupidity of some of the commenters here. And they brandish this stupidity like a sword. No sense of joy that something new or novel or paradigm-smashing has been discovered. And all by way of the scientific method - which they completely misunderstand.

Disheartening is the word.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2012
China, India and other developing nations will look-on and laugh up their sleeves as the US descends into a third-rate country due to an increasing lack of adequately trained scientists and engineers that are supported and respected by society!

There are more than enough trained scientists and engineers in the USA.
The US is descending into turdworld status because of the socialist policies of the 'progressives'. The EPA won't allow mining and oil drilling in the US and they are killing nuclear power so no need for geologists, mining engineers, nuclear engineers, or civil engineers. Without economic growth, there is no way for industry or govt to fund serious research and all the revolving door power is in the banking sector, which is controlled by the state.
There are a few daring billionaires willing to invest, Paul Allen, Musk, Branson,
ScooterG
1 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
I'm with Deathclock. Wow. There is no end to the breathtaking stupidity of some of the commenters here. And they brandish this stupidity like a sword. No sense of joy that something new or novel or paradigm-smashing has been discovered. And all by way of the scientific method - which they completely misunderstand.

Disheartening is the word.


I don't know what you two are so bent out of shape over. The article questions why doubts persist. If the author didn't want feedback, he shouldn't have asked the question. You may not like the responses, but I'll bet the author appreciates everyone taking time out of their day to chime in.

Seems to me the only two areas of science that have a real issue are creation vs evolution and anything associated with radical environmentalists (eg AGW).

If scientists are wondering why they are being diss'd, they need to go look in the mirror.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
Progressives hate doubt because they want unity of thought, action, and believe. Except for the Progressive elite, as they are special and smarter than the rest of us.

Science IS all about testing, questioning, doubting, verifying. When you can't doubt Evolution, Evolution becomes a religion.

And creationism isn't??
When there is no other logical way for something to have happened, there is a very good chance that is the way it happened.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2012
Why does doubt persist? Because people don't understand the difference between science and folklore. Let me give the deniers a chance:

1) Show me any peer reviewed evidence that refutes evolution.

2) Show me any peer reviewed refutation of General Relativity.

3) Show me any peer reviewed refutation of AGW.

4) Show me any peer reviewed support of cold fusion.

Please, carefully read my words. I am looking for refutation of the concept, not a change of a few mw in a forcing function, or a newly found species that extends a lime. Put up or shut up.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2012
thermodynamics,
Why does doubt persist? Because people don't understand the difference between science and folklore. ...

Show me any peer reviewed evidence that refutes evolution.


Of course, you ask the wrong question. You can't refute, for example, the assertion that God exists.

The problem with evolution theory is that people are expected to believe in it. Can't just agree that it is a useful theory (albeit one which has not been demonstrated). Must believe in it.

Show us why we should believe in a theory -- any theory at all. Why have faith in any scientific theory?

Relativity theory has been demonstrated many times in many ways. It remains a theory because it could fail some test sometime. Most people find it to be an excellent model. But rational people find no reason to have faith in it.

Show us why we should have faith in a theory.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2012
thermodynamics,
Why does doubt persist? Because people don't understand the difference between science and folklore. ...

Show me any peer reviewed evidence that refutes evolution.


Of course, you ask the wrong question. You can't refute, for example, the assertion that God exists.

The problem with evolution theory is that people are expected to believe in it. Can't just agree that it is a useful theory (albeit one which has not been demonstrated). Must believe in it.

Show us why we should believe in a theory -- any theory at all. Why have faith in any scientific theory?
- - - -

Of course it has been demonstrated in a matter of decades. Where have you been, haven't you been aware of the growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics??
Pressure2
5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
Dogbert:
Of course it has been demonstrated in a matter of decades. Where have you been? Haven't you been aware of the growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics?
eko
5 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2012
Show us why we should have faith in a theory.


Cell Theory
Germ Theory
Quantum Theory
Music Theory
Circuit Theory
Atomic Theory
Evolution Theory
Theory of Electromagnetism
Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory
Theory of Molecular Bonds

All well known scientific theories.

Well wait...forget about those. I'll give you a really easy one since you're not using your head for much. Prove you have no faith in the theory of gravity and go jump off a building.
Shootist
3.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2012

Well wait...forget about those. I'll give you a really easy one since you're not using your head for much. Prove you have no faith in the theory of gravity and go jump off a building.


Quite right. Gravity is a fact, not a theory.

Evolution is fact as well. How evolution works the way it works is the theory part.
eko
5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012

Quite right. Gravity is a fact, not a theory.

Evolution is fact as well. How evolution works the way it works is the theory part.


Does that mean using your methods that music is a fact? How music works the way it works is the theory part?

Gravity is not a fact as there are still things about gravity which we currently don't understand. The theory of gravity contains facts that we do know about gravity like...

-Objects with mass are attracted to each other
-Gravity keeps Earth and the other planets in our solar system in orbit around the Sun.
-Tides are caused by the rotation of the Earth and the gravitational effects of the Moon and Sun.
-The force of gravity 100 kilometres (62 miles) above Earth is just 3% less than at the Earth's surface.

Scientific theories are not the "theories" you're coming up with. They are different. Perhaps you should first understand the difference between the two. Try looking up a definition.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
From a real scientist:

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...MdXXc.99
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2012
Of course what is called gravity exists. What is not certain is how and why it does what it does.
All theories are incomplete models of what is observed.
Regardless of how good we think the model, the better we get at the tools and techniques to measure, the more we see how incomplete the model.
Scientists would be of more service if they were more ready to acknowledge what they do NOT understand or know.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
rygg: I have a theory that you are not a scientist.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses." Isaac Newton
Pkunk_
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
Deathclock,
The problem is the fundamentalists treat this like a war...


This article begins by attacking religion. Note that the author does not consider himself a fundamentalist, but his actions are indistinguishable from any religion attacking any other religion.

Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal should be resisted.


Scientific dogma tends to be based on facts and experimental data. And if you have a problem with the "dogma" as you call it , the beauty of scientific "dogma" is that it is completely open to criticism and falsification with facts. There are countless times when scientists just take the opposite stand when presented with facts to the opposite. Except AGW , most of the topics the author has raised have stood the test of time and are based on empirical evidence.

Religious dogma on the other hand is based on blind faith with absolutely no proof to back it up other than just "X% of idiots believe in this tripe" , so it must be true !
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
Pkunk,
Scientific dogma tends to be based on facts and experimental data.

No, No, No! You should never believe in something just because someone else says you should believe in it.

Your model of reality should be based on your own synthesis of the information available to you. And it should be constantly updated as more information becomes available.

The problem with dogma is that once you accept someone else's authority to inform you, you are trapped in that world view. You did not come to your world view by your own analyses and you have surrendered your ability to change.

Scientific dogma is not better than any other dogma.

Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal should be resisted.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
Your model of reality should be based on your own synthesis of the information available to you.

That part I actually agree on.

However, one should also be aware of one's own limitations. I.e. you're not as smart as a whole bunch of other people, nor are you as educated or as knowledgeable in a multitude of subjects as other people (that's a general 'you', not a specific one)

Then there is something like trust. If someone can show their work on demand or have it inspected by others for verification - and if that verification turns out to be right on the money again and again - then one can put a certain amount of trust in that person (in this case in an entire profession).

Dogma would be where you are expected to believe and MAY not inspect the work.

This is one thing where religion and science differ. Religion doesn't show its 'work' for inspection - science does.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2012
Dogma would be where you are expected to believe and MAY not inspect the work.

Sounds like Michael Mann when he and Nature refused to release his data and analysis sw.
eko
5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
This is one thing where religion and science differ. Religion doesn't show its 'work' for inspection - science does.


Religion doesn't show or teach us anything if all we have to do is believe. Take Steve Jobs for example as written about in the article. Religion never shows its 'work' because it doesn't do work. Controlling the masses with fear about the unknown has been its greatest accomplishment.

Science anyone can do. Anyone can choose to believe or not believe. The problem is though is that science allows things to be proven.

Religion is a guess that failed long ago when we used to believe in the sun as a god.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2012
Controlling the masses with fear about the unknown has been its greatest accomplishment.

But AGW is not a religion? That's what its faithful keep preaching, fear.
Science still has not answered many questions people want to know and real science never will because there is no way to design an experiment to test the theory.
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...EKhz0.99
eko
5 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
But AGW is not a religion? That's what its faithful keep preaching, fear.


If a lab came back with results that you could have cancer, are the doctors telling you this preaching fear? If you learned that your car's brake system is going bad is your car instilling fear in you that something might be wrong? Concern can be substituted for fear. I'm not afraid of the changing weather but I am concerned.

When Galileo, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Johannes Kepler helped us to learn that we weren't the center of the universe were they preaching fear? If you're so scared about what science can teach us maybe you should take up one of the arts perhaps music, painting, or alchemy.

People afraid of science need to go back to practicing alchemy and astrology and leave the science of today to educated researchers.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2012
If a lab came back

A lab produces real data.

A computer model does not.

If millions of people left church afraid, I doubt many would attend.
What people should really fear are those with govt power who claim they know what is best for you,and force you to comply, because it is based upon 'science'.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2012
"Setting up Science as the opponent of religion has the same fundamental problem: it becomes a pseudo-religion based on science. Science with a capital S would assert that science can explain (or will ultimately explain) everything – we just need the time to get there. However, this stance is faith, not science, or rather "faith in science", which is not science but a belief."
"Nature is, and science is how we try to describe it. Clouds exist; meteorology is the science of figuring out what they are and how they affect the weather. This has nothing to do with belief. If you do want to use Science as a belief system, it doesn't work very well."
http://www.guardi...cal-cool
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2012
If millions of people left church afraid, I doubt many would attend.

Yet if you ask any of them whether they are "godfearing" - they would answer "yes".

What people should really fear are those with govt power who claim they know what is best for you

Remind me: How exactly is a priest different from this, again?

,and force you to comply, because it is based upon 'science'.

Now THERE is a difference. Because with science you have something you can show that works. So if someone tells you: "shoot yourself in the head and you die - because lab studies have shown this to be true" do you disregard this because it's based on science?

Science has a very strict methodology. If you spend a few weeks to come to grips with that methodology you will notice that science can't just claim any old thing (because then it isn't science).

You have very warped view of what science is.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
Science has a very strict methodology. If you spend a few weeks to come to grips with that methodology you will notice that science can't just claim any old thing (because then it isn't science). You have very warped view of what science is.
It doesn't explain, why for example more than 90% of medicine studies are getting disproved during ten years. IMO you're systematically confusing the real state of science with your theoretical ideas, how the science should appear, if it would be represented with ideal people.

So sorry, the contemporary science is far from ideal, because the people doing science aren't ideal. This trend is even getting worse, because the first scientists (Humprey Davy, Lavoisier, Tesla, Faraday, etc.) did science for their own money, so that their motivation could be really scientific. But today most of people does science like regular job payed mostly from mandatory fees, which even lacks the public feedback in addition - and the results are corresponding.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
For example, I'm doing science for my own money and for me it's completely absurd the situation, when mainstream science ignores, or even activelly boycotts just the findings, which could help the human civilization in most pronounced way, like the cold fusion. Because the primary reason of the whole existence of science is to help the humanity, not just the close sectarian group of researchers, who just fear for their safe jobs and salaries. IMO the separation of science from its own ideals has never become so apparent in human history, as just today.
trapezoid
4.5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
...
Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal, should be resisted. Rational and reasoning people rightly resist dogma.
...
Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal should be resisted.
...
Dogma, whatever its source and whatever its goal should be resisted.


That sounds like a dogma. Are you a rational and reasoning person?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
For example, I'm doing science for my own money and for me it's completely absurd the situation, when mainstream science ignores, or even http://e-catsite....funding/ just the findings, which could help the human civilization in most pronounced way, like the cold fusion. Because the primary reason of the whole existence of science is to help the humanity, not just the close sectarian group of researchers, who just fear for their safe jobs and salaries. IMO the separation of science from its own ideals has never become so apparent in human history, as just today.


Thank you for the perfect example of peer review actually working. E-Cat has been shown to fail in its last demo (as we all thought it would). It uses more energy than it produces. Why wouldn't someone aware of the shortcomings cut the funding? This is the way science works. You propose pseudoscience, it is tested, it fails = NO FUNDING.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
E-Cat has been shown to fail in its last demo
E-Cat has absolutely nothing to do with peer-review at all, as it was never published in peer-reviewed press. It was tested as reliably, as Andrea Rossi presented it. But I do agree, that for the mainstream physicists, who fear of the cold fusion competition for their research every evasion against cold fusion is good enough. Before some time I believed in "conspiracy theory", that the mystical "fossil fuel lobby" is main problem here. But from these times the research of so-called "green technologies" expanded immensely, no fossil lobby prohibited this apparent competition and I realized, it's just the scientists itself who are the main culprit here. And that their opposition works so well just because it's so widespread. Literally every scientist not involved in cold fusion research hates the cold fusion heartily.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
Most of scientists hates the cold fusion research not only, because it threats their own research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage, but because it demonstrates clearly, that the peer-review applied to first Fleischman-Pons result failed flagrantly. Prof. Hagelstein at MIT does nothing else, then what Fleischman and Pons did before twenty years already! He just fuses the deuterium and palladium under the very same mild conditions. Such a confirmation of cold fusion doubts the credibility of mainstream physics as a whole, because it doubts its main validation mechanisms: a peer-review, the whole basis of contemporary scientific method. Cold fusion demonstrates clearly, not only that the physicists are wasting tax payer money in useless research, but they're even prohibiting the actual progress of the human civilization.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2012
Phil Primack
Did you talk to Barry Marschall before writing this?

http://www.nobelp...bio.html

Excerpt:
Over the years the journalists who covered the story helped significantly in educating the public to ask for and later demand the new treatments from unwilling doctors.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2012
Yet if you ask any of them whether they are "godfearing"


Words have meaning.

'Liberals' are no longer liberal. 'Progressives' are not progressive. Gays are not gay.

What does God fearing mean?

"the Hebrew word translated "fear" in Ecclesiastes 12:13
, does not just mean "to be afraid." It carries the additional meanings of to stand in awe of, to reverence, honor and respect."

VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
It is odd how RyggTard childishly spends his every wakeing hour demanding that his property rights are being violated, and yet he does not seem capable of understanding why Mann will not violate the the property rights of others by releasing data that he has no right to release.

"Sounds like Michael Mann when he and Nature refused to release his data and analysis sw." - RyggTard

Of course when Mann did release his analysis to real, qualified scientists at PNAS, the analysis was found to be a qualified success.

Poor RyggTard.
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
Slavery = Freedom according to the Libertarian Newspeak dictionary.

"Words have meaning." - RyggTard
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
It must be sad for you that Cold Fusion has turned into such a scam.

"Prof. Hagelstein at MIT does nothing else, then what Fleischman and Pons did before twenty years already!" - ValeriaT
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
Ecat Test Failure Leads Investors to stop $10 Million Investment

http://energycata...vestment

Poor Cold ConFusionists.
gwrede
5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
E-Cat (...) was tested as reliably, as Andrea Rossi presented it.
Yes. And that is the entire problem with E-Cat.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2012
Scooty,

"He touches on a few instances where the general public has been duped or screwed over by various corporate/government entities"

He did not mention any occurance where rigged "science" duped/screwed over the general public ie spotted owl hoax.


Then what do you call this passage:

"They may adjust data and findings to cater to corporate sponsors. Or they may fail to speak up when big business withholds inconvenient findings about a product—as in the case of Vioxx, the prescription painkiller that Merck marketed for years, all the while concealing data about the increased risk of heart attack and stroke.'"


?

I'll grant you, that's no spotted owl...but it is just the sort of animal that you say goes unmentioned in this article.

Maybe try rereading it without making up your mind about its meaning before you start.

Also, don't forget to change the filter in your gas mask and adjust that tinfoil liner in your cap.



Tausch
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2012
Words have meaning. -R


This was the weakest retort ever to 'God-fearing'.

Sound has meaning (at any period in life.)
Sight has meaning (at any period in life.)

'Words' are an extension of sight (what you see here) and sound(what you hear.)

Symbolic visuals for sight and sound (and others senses as well.)

These visuals(words)are crutches to imprint/recall the associations (meaning) to the senses you experience or imagine.

The word 'photon' is the 'suitcase' (carrier) that contains the contents (the quanta).

The word 'words' are the 'suitcases' (carriers) that contain the contents of associations your senses provide to your brain.

So the only meaning words have is one where one imagines a carrier of content (associations) of any sort.

Your associations have little consensus among the associations of others here.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2012
Here is a Republican Senator on stage in front of a bunch of ignorant bible thumpers, falsely claiming that he is a scientist.

http://www.youtub...=related

"rygg: I have a theory that you are not a scientist." - Thermodynamics

Who is electing these Republican liars, morons and frauds?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2012
Climate change is another: according to a 2009 Pew survey, about half of Americans doubt that human activity contributes to global warming, despite strong scientific evidence that it does.


There are rational http://www.dailym...-it.html for doubting,.. not that 'climate change' occurs, after all, it is remarkable that it is as stable as it is, ...nor even that humans have some effect upon the climate,... but the notion of 'cataclysmic AGW' as perpetuated by the political left and climate industry in general.

The above linked data will be DOUBTED by the climate industry in effecting their believed general conclusions.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2012
[EDIT]

There are rational reasons for doubting,.. not that 'climate change' occurs, after all, it is remarkable that it is as stable as it is, ...nor even that humans have some effect upon the climate,... but the notion of 'cataclysmic AGW' as perpetuated by the political left and climate industry in general.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2012
Your associations have little consensus among the associations of others here.

Please publish a dictionary.

One of the most important features of any science is standardization in measurement systems and in language for clarity.
Given the term 'God fearing' was translated from Hebrew, it seems the best way to understand its meaning is to understand the original intent.
But I know the 'progressives' here don't like original intent. Especially in a Constitution. That is what Pres. Wilson and FDR have promoted along with their fellow travelers to promote socialism.
If the individual is sovereign, not the state, then the state can't be the giver and taker of rights. Just another reason for the staatists to promote atheism.
Tausch
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2012
"the Hebrew word translated "fear" in Ecclesiastes 12:13 , does not just mean "to be afraid." It carries the additional meanings of to stand in awe of, to reverence, honor and respect." - R


What is the original intent of so many meanings?
Which meaning conveys the original intent?
Confusion is conveyed not clarity.

One of the most important features of any science are dimensionless numerical values independent of any standardization in measurement systems.
I leave you to guess where dimensionless values come from:
Hint; not from any standardization in measurement systems.

We all look forward towards your progress in learning a language - any language - for sake of clarity. Start with English. You show promise with this even when you pretend to understand.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2012
NumenTard links to the Daily Mail.

He might as well be linking to the National Enquirer.

Note the difference between the real data presented here.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997

And the graphic that appears on the Mail Online website.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

The two plots don't look anything like each other.

Another Daily Mail Fraud Job.
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
You didn't link to any "data", FraudJob.

"The above linked data will be DOUBTED" - NumenTard
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
The latest HadCrut4 dataset is now available.

It is plotted in the following graph.

Where is the cooling claimed by the denialists?

http://www.metoff...global_n s.gif
Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
I don't consider myself a science denialist. Far from it.

But gee whiz, established dogma is not science. Science is all about acknowledging uncertainty where uncertainty exists, not absolutist pronouncements.

For example, what do we really know about fluoridation?

- The 'fluoride' treatment for water supplies is administering a drug to whole populations using the most inexact dosing method imaginable.

- The drug used in municipal water fluoridation is not the same chemical compound which has been shown in studies to reduce cavities.

- To reduce cavities, topical tooth treatment is vastly preferable to whole-body drugging.

Industry regularly engages in deceptive 'science' which upholds a profit model. You just can't approach science without being wary of this.

I remember a German study which found that stevia, a natural sweetener, was toxic to humans. They burned stevia leaves, then found toxins in the residue. Burn *any* organic matter and you get toxins.
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
The study was funded by Big Ag, which did not want stevia to undercut their business models by becoming a popular no-calorie sweetener. In human bodies, these toxins never form - because we aren't on fire.

Fluoridation has similar industry advocates spinning spurious 'studies.'

The solution to denialism is not for scientists to spout dogma. The answer is to educate the population in critical thinking skills and teach them how to evaluate evidence, discern where uncertainties lie, and be wary of self-interested distortions which exist in science as they do in all human endeavors.

For AGW, for vaccines, for fluoridation, even for evolution, there is still more to learn. That's the starting point for any rational conversation in science. When scientists sound as dogmatic as denialists, when their starting point is that we know the absolute truth and have nothing else to learn, they are descending into the denialist gutter where truth cannot live.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
urgelt: I will assume you are being sincere when you say: "But gee whiz, established dogma is not science. Science is all about acknowledging uncertainty where uncertainty exists, not absolutist pronouncements."

I'm not going to get into a discussion or fluoridation because it is not an area of my expertise. However, I have to jump in when you say that climate science is absolutist pronouncements and you bemoan a lack of candor about uncertainty. Below is a link. Please look at the charts there.

http://www.metoff...ics.html

Do you see that they have the means and 95% confidence bars? What that means is that they are using statistics to help define the uncertainty. How can you say they are absolutists when they are careful to show their uncertainty and, even make the data available if you want to do your own calculations. That is the way scientists work with data using reproducible methods.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
NumenTard links to the Daily Mail.

He might as well be linking to the National Enquirer.

Note the difference between the real data presented here.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1997

And the graphic that appears on the Mail Online website.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

The two plots don't look anything like each other.

Another Daily Mail Fraud Job.


Thanks for proving my point so efficiently.

Did you bother to determine where that data came from? The Daily Mail did not make that data, it is reporting information released by the MET Office in the UK. The Daily Mail author of that article is NOT a AGW denier.

That data, being DENIED by you, shows there has been NO global warming in the past 16 years. Therefore it is rational to interprete this as a lack of accuracy of the "cataclysmic model" predictions.

The foregoing PhysOrg article applies both ways.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2012
Note the difference between the real data presented here. http://www.woodfo...rom:1997 And the graphic that appears on the Mail Online website. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg The two plots don't look anything like each other.


LOL, those two graphs are the same, dingbat. Were you hoping your comrades in denial wouldn't bother checking? They BOTH show that there has been NO warming in the past 16 years.

A rational person would then legitimately question models showing run-away cataclysmic AGW, while NOT necessarily denying AGW itself. YOU however are a case study for the above physorg article.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
One of the most important features of any science are dimensionless numerical values independent of any standardization in measurement systems.


When you learn to communicate with e, pi, .... let me know.
PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2012
I believe this discussion is not complete without mention of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Those particularly and chronically afflicted, may be colloquially said to suffer from a case of DK-head. ;-)

Hey Noumenon, check out these here charts:

http://climate.na...icators/

and them there charts:

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

It takes a special degree of cognitive dissonance to ignore THAT much evidence, so neatly served up (never mind the broad scientific consensus among the actual subject matter experts...)

If I may be so bold as to advance a hypothetical diagnosis, IMHO you're boldly going way past "DK-head", and deep into loony bin territory. (Hey, are you and ubavontuba related, by any chance?)
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
What specifically did I post that you object to?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
Pinky, you do know Einstein's theories are continuously tested. Why waste so much time if there were no doubt?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
Pinky, you do know Einstein's theories are continuously tested. Why waste so much time if there were no doubt?
Well, the cold fusion is doubted too, but it's not tested... Apparently, a two different criteria do apply here. The contemporary physics is employment driven and it avoids the controversial research (scalar waves, antigravity, LENR) and negative results - so that the neverending confirmation of established theories represents the welcomed job opportunity too. If the mainstream physics would be really interested just about violation of its established paradigms, it has already a way more iconic (and useful) phenomena waiting in queue. But the carps never empty their own pond and the mainstream physics will move toward new paradigm just as fast, as not to threat the job positions in existing research. After all, the physicists have nowhere to hurry, until money are going.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
As an illustrative example of the checking of basic paradigm can serve the search for extradimensions, which could violate the inverse square law for gravity (ISL). During this search the various dipole forces, Cassimir force and dynamic Cassimir effect were found gradually - but they were never considered as a violation of gravitation law soughed. The new experiment was simply adjusted, so that the already known effects violating Newton's law were compensated - and the search for gravity violation continued like if nothing would ever happen.

Such a strange (if not humorous) approach is the natural consequence of psychosocial tendency to find something new - but not to threat the established paradigms at the same moment. In addition, the more phenomena and theories, the more jobs the theorists can occupy - so why not to use it? The physicists itself cannot recognize, how much their own research is affected with psychosocioeconomical factors - someone from outside must explain it.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Pinky, you do know Einstein's theories are continuously tested. Why waste so much time if there were no doubt?


That is because every theory is pushed to the limits to see where it fails. In the case of cold fusion, it has failed every time it has been carefully tested. Relativity has never failed. However, everyone expects new physics to give us a deeper understanding of the cosmos so we keep pushing relativity and quantum chromodynamics.

That is what science does. We always want better answers. However, when an experiment shows something is false we have the chance to move on. You have just not figured that out yet.

In engineering we have more degrees of freedom and more intrinsic uncertainty in our calculations. As an example, I can calculate the velocity of an electron in a field to 6 decimals. However, I can calculate the velocity of a bullet leaving a gun barrel to approximately 1 unit (ft/sec) because the environment for the calculation is noisy. (cont)
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2012
cont. You seem to confuse fundamental science with engineering. When it comes to climate and weather the degrees of freedom are daunting. What happens is that the models concentrate on specific regions of phase space to make predictions. Everyone, including the modelers, know the limitations, but they are still useful.

The area of climate change that is well known and that more decimals are being added to is the area of heat exchange within the Earth-Sun system. How that heat exchange translates to climate is difficult to calculate. So, those who don't know better assume that since we can't calculate the temperature tomorrow we can't tell you how much additional heat is being added to the Earth. Do you need more explanation? Do you understand? Or, do you just want to continue to deny something you don't understand?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
The latest HadCrut4 dataset is now available.

It is plotted in the following graph. Where is the cooling claimed by the denialists?

https://docs.goog...QS1BjTjg
Noumenon
3 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2012
The latest HadCrut4 dataset is now available.

It is plotted in the following graph. Where is the cooling claimed by the denialists?

https://docs.goog...QS1BjTjg


Who said anything about cooling? Where is the cataclysmic run-away warming? The issue is not that there is no AGW effect,... it is that the models failed to predict the leveling off,.. even though they claimed accuracy to a few degrees per century. There is denial that climate science does not have a handle on global climate as they have claimed.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2012
That is because every theory is pushed to the limits to see where it fails.

Except for AGW.
In the case of cold fusion, it has failed every time it has been carefully tested

No it has not.
Relativity has never failed.

Then you have faith it will never change?
when an experiment shows something is false we have the chance to move on.

Or try and explain an anomalous observation. You all really believe fellow scientists Fleischman and Pons lied? If so, how do you trust any scientist? If not, then there should be no reason not to keep on trying to understand what they observed.

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2012
"Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2012

It takes a special degree of cognitive dissonance to ignore THAT much evidence, so neatly served up (never mind the broad scientific consensus among the actual subject matter experts...)

If I may be so bold as to advance a hypothetical diagnosis, IMHO you're boldly going way past "DK-head", and deep into loony bin territory. (Hey, are you and ubavontuba related, by any chance?)


Again, what is it that you object to in my post? Or do you just like to do 'drive-by' ad-hominem posts?

Where did I ignore data in that post? The link I provided references two climate scientists, one of whom states that the climate models are "deeply flawed",.. while the other admits climate scientists do not understand natural variations,.. like long term ocean and sun output. Those charts show a less than 1.50*f change over 100 years, which is remarkably stable, .... what about those long term variations?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012

Caliban stated: "I'll grant you, that's no spotted owl...but it is just the sort of animal that you say goes unmentioned in this article.

Maybe try rereading it without making up your mind about its meaning before you start."

You are correct, the author did mention it in his jab at corporate America.

I've made three anti enviro-nazi posts in this thread - you only found one trivial bone to pick. That's good, maybe there's hope that you might someday come to your senses. I'll pray for it.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
@Noumenon,

My main objection is to you being the troll that you are, and collaterally to your incessant trolling. But you do sound hungry, so here's a couple of crumbs.
Again, what is it that you object to in my post?
How about this: "That data, being DENIED by you, shows there has been NO global warming in the past 16 years."

Now go back and look at those summary chart sites I linked for your convenience. Note the massive and steady world-wide heat build-up. I'll especially direct your attention at the fact that the oceans are a vastly greater heat reservoir than the atmosphere. And to the fact that deep-ocean heat (down to 2000 m) has been rising faster than shallower heat (down to 700 m), which is an indication of accelerated mixing, which in turn hints at increased upwelling of deep cold water to the surface, which would tend to temporarily cool the surface and thus generate those transient temperature plateaus you've been so noisily ranting and raging about.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
Where is the cataclysmic run-away warming?
And your definition of "cataclysmic" is...?

A world-wide average temperature increase from 287 K to 292 K over a century or two doesn't sound terribly "cataclysmic". Tremendously disruptive, stupendously costly, ridiculously damaging? Sure. But probably not "cataclysmic" by any sort of a cosmic standard.

If you thought AGW was all about the Earth turning into Venus, you've been barking up the wrong tree (and if that's the case, really you should try to take your meds and stop barking altogether.)

Better yet, just assume that experts in the field know a hell of a lot more about it than you ever presumed to know in your wildest wet dreams. Stop being a DK-head.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
Jedith Curry isn't a climate scientist.

Further, in her her nonsense "journal" she saw fit to rush to print an article that claimed that the sun was made from Iron.

That alone disqualifies her from even being considered a scientist.

"The link I provided references two climate scientists, one of whom states that the climate models are "deeply flawed",.." - NumenTard

Finally, your "link" was to a newspaper editorial in a paper that is only slightly more reputable than the National Enquirer, and in the article in question has been caught red handed in not only producing a fabricated plot of global climate for the article, but also caught misrepresenting the research of the CRU.

You chose quite a reputable source there Tard Boy..

Ahahahahahahah..... Denialist Morons.....

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 16, 2012
Better yet, just assume that experts in the field know a hell of a lot more about it than you ever presumed to know in your wildest wet dreams. Stop being a DK-head.


I would advise you to do the same, as my post was based on reports and comments made by climate scientist, not my own.

As a troll and a half-wit, you assumed that I "deny AGW" straight-off, even though I qualified my objections by the use of the phrase "cataclysmic AGW", which means the well documented speculative alarmist propaganda from the political left.

Your obiection to "That data, being DENIED by you, shows there has been NO global warming in the past 16 years." is not an objection to anything I stated nor invented, but rather findings made in a report by the MET Office in the UK, and by climate scientists referred to in the above link, commenting on that data.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Your obiection to "That data, being DENIED by you, shows there has been NO global warming in the past 16 years." is not an objection to anything I stated nor invented
Granted, you merely parroted it...
but rather findings made in a report by the MET Office in the UK
No actual climate scientist would ever claim that "NO global warming" has been happening, when copious quantities of heat have been clearly accumulating across the globe.
and by climate scientists referred to in the above link, commenting on that data.
No, those would be hacks and wags with a political agenda, purposefully misrepresenting the implications of the data. Same way as ID advocates (some with alleged academic background) purposefully misrepresent anything and everything to do with evolution and the natural history of the universe, same way as tobacco PhD "scientists" for decades purposefully misrepresented the science on nicotine addiction and smoke inhalation toxicity and carcenogenicity, etc.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
Jedith Curry isn't a climate scientist.- VD.


I learned long ago that you will just say anything, as most mush-head liberals do.

In fact she IS a climatologist and professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

In your mind, is a climatologist one who defacto accepts AGW without question? If such was true the entire field would be invalid.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2012

Caliban stated: "I'll grant you, that's no spotted owl...but it is just the sort of animal that you say goes unmentioned in this article.

Maybe try rereading it without making up your mind about its meaning before you start."

You are correct, the author did mention it in his jab at corporate America.

I've made three anti enviro-nazi posts in this thread - you only found one trivial bone to pick. That's good, maybe there's hope that you might someday come to your senses. I'll pray for it.


Save your prayers for your own nut bag, Scooty.

Your comments exhibit one clear, overriding signal --SHILL.
The only remaining question is, is that paid or unpaid?

PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2012
BTW, if you actually cut through Rose's spin and misrepresentations and read what Curry and Jones *actually* said, then you'd see that all they were saying is that current models do not have enough fidelity in representing the details of oceanic circulation.

And that is, BTW, the basic issue here: that the slow (decadal and multi-decadal) cycles in global climate are driven by oscillations in ocean currents and related interactions between ocean surface and the atmosphere. There isn't nearly enough computational power available to model these things with high fidelity either now or within the next couple of decades. So, the plateaus and even short-term downtrends in global average *atmospheric* temperatures are both expected and (at present) unpredictable.

What is not in contention by any serious climate scientist, is that heat is continuing to build up steadily across the globe, and that the long-term trend in atmospheric temperatures is steadily up despite the dips and plateaus.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
....and by climate scientists referred to in the above link, commenting on that data.- Noumenon
No, those would be hacks and wags with a political agenda, purposefully misrepresenting the implications of the data.-PinkIrrelephant


Both of those referred to are climate scientists, and both believe fully in AGW, ...you mindless tit.

You and VD will go so far as to DENY that people are even climate scienists, if they utter somehing counter to your new religion.

Didn't you just tell me,.. "just assume that experts in the field know a hell of a lot more about it than you ever presumed to know",... and now you maintain that YOUR qualified in deciding whether they are qualified scientists or not? Troll by any definition.

PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2012
ctd.

Again, see here:

http://www.nodc.n...0myr.png

Assuming you actually bothered to look, you will notice a steady up-trend since 1990. That is in contrast to atmospheric temperatures, which have "stalled" since the late 90's. However, this divergence is not sustainable in the long term. Eventually, the oceans will have warmed up enough that they will no longer so effectively cool the atmosphere.

At any given time, the excess heat from AGW goes into some reservoir. When it isn't the oceans, it's the atmosphere or the glaciers. When it isn't the atmosphere, it's the glaciers or the oceans. The back-and-forth oscillations of heat flow are only relevant on small regional scales and small time scales.

On large global scales and on time spans of decades and centuries, general trends dominate over oscillations. And with AGW, the general trend in all temperatures is steadily upward. That's what the SCIENCE says, at least...
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2012
Both of those referred to are climate scientists, and both believe fully in AGW, ...you mindless tit.
I was referring to David Rose, and I stand by my assessment.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012

Caliban stated: "I'll grant you, that's no spotted owl...but it is just the sort of animal that you say goes unmentioned in this article.

Maybe try rereading it without making up your mind about its meaning before you start."

You are correct, the author did mention it in his jab at corporate America.

I've made three anti enviro-nazi posts in this thread - you only found one trivial bone to pick. That's good, maybe there's hope that you might someday come to your senses. I'll pray for it.


Save your prayers for your own nut bag, Scooty.

Your comments exhibit one clear, overriding signal --SHILL.
The only remaining question is, is that paid or unpaid?



I'm no schill, just a taxpayer tired of being railroaded by environmental radicals posing as scientists.
Too late, the prayer went out already.

And why so hateful? Does that somehow further your cause?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
Both of those referred to are climate scientists, and both believe fully in AGW, ...you mindless tit.
I was referring to David Rose, and I stand by my assessment.


No, you were not....

and by CLIMATE SCIENTISTS referred to in the above link, commenting on that data.- Noumenon
No, those would be hacks and wags with a political agenda, purposefully misrepresenting the implications of the data - Pink
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
...Eventually, the oceans will have warmed up enough that they will no longer so effectively cool the atmosphere. At any given time, the excess heat from AGW goes into some reservoir. When it isn't the oceans, it's the atmosphere or the glaciers. When it isn't the atmosphere, it's the glaciers or the oceans. The back-and-forth oscillations of heat flow are only relevant on small regional scales and small time scales. On large global scales and on time spans of decades and centuries, general trends dominate over oscillations. And with AGW, the general trend in all temperatures is steadily upward. That's what the SCIENCE says, at least..


Why are you telling me all of this?

Where did I say that the lack of warming of the last 16 years disproves the notion of AGW,.. in fact I stated it does not in my 1st post.

What it demonstrates, is that the models are incomplete, there are factors that are not understood fully (as admitted in the link), otherwise it would have been anticipated
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
No, you were not....
Oh yeah? Please quote *either* Jones *or* Curry stating ANYTHING even REMOTELY similar to: "That data ... shows there has been NO global warming in the past 16 years."
Where did I say that the lack of warming of the last 16 years disproves the notion of AGW
You just did it again. You said "lack of warming". There is no lack of warming. The warming has been continuing all along. I showed you the data. I bet you never bothered to look. More to the point, could it be you don't have a clue as to what you're looking at, nor how to judge it?
there are factors that are not understood fully (as admitted in the link)
The factors are understood, but cannot be forecast. There is a difference. More to the point, detailed fine-scale forecasts are irrelevant when discussing the big picture.
otherwise it would have been anticipated
What would have been anticipated? A plateau like already encountered between 1946-1975? Or the 1987-1996 one? etc.?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
Please quote *either* Jones *or* Curry stating ANYTHING even REMOTELY similar to: "That data ... shows there has been NO global warming in the past 16 years."


'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,' Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university

"Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau [while obviously admitting the data suggests a plateau], saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions."

Yet in 2009 he said,.....

"Bottom line: the "no upward trend" has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.".

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
Where did I say that the lack of warming of the last 16 years disproves the notion of AGW
You just did it again. You said "lack of warming". There is no lack of warming. The warming has been continuing all along. I showed you the data. I bet you never bothered to look. More to the point, could it be you don't have a clue as to what you're looking at, nor how to judge it?


We are discussing the actual measured temperature data,... where the warming is hiding right this minute is a layer of interpretation and theory. The bottom line for predictions of global warming is an actual measure of global temperature.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
The factors are understood, but cannot be forecast. There is a difference.


"We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don't know what natural variability is doing." - Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

------------

The global temperature has risen only 1.4°F since 1880. We're not implementing anti-capitalist socialist policies, redistribution of wealth, and government control over human behavior,.... as the leftist alarmists have been propagandizing.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Here's what Curry has actually been saying:
I have no idea where the 'deeply flawed' came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?) Also, I agree that 16 years is too short, given the timescales of the PDO and AMO, to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways: the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO).
...
The data confirms the existence of a 'pause' in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean.
So, she isn't saying there's been no warming. She's saying short-term variability is masking the underlying global warming trend (for the time being.) Jones says same the thing, BTW.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
ctd.

Note, by the way, that Curry puts 'quotes' around 'pause'. There's a reason for that.

Anyway, continuing:
We are discussing the actual measured temperature data,... where the warming is hiding right this minute is a layer of interpretation and theory
No it's not. It's a matter of other "actual measured temperature data" (of the ocean, in addition to atmosphere, and also total mass of land glaciers, including Antarctica and Greenland). The warming is not 'hiding' anywhere, other than in plain sight.
The bottom line for predictions of global warming is an actual measure of global temperature.
Nobody is or has been predicting that atmospheric temperature must rise in a straight line. You are attacking a very beaten-up red herring.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2012
We're not implementing anti-capitalist socialist policies, redistribution of wealth
How come failing to assess and bill for the true impact and mitigation costs of industrial pollutants, is somehow not an anti-capitalist socialist policy?

Aren't markets supposed to be based on full an accurate accounting of all costs and benefits? How can markets operate correctly or objectively when a major cost signal is systematically obfuscated, for purely political reasons, to the point of even denying its existence?

How is uniformly and indiscriminately foisting costs of carbon pollution on all current and future inhabitants of the planet, regardless of the extent to which they individually contribute to that pollution whether directly or indirectly, NOT a socialist, redistributionist system?
government control over human behavior
That's what the rule of law means. Government control over human behavior. I can understand how you'd hate that if you were into organized crime...
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2012

Caliban stated: "I'll grant you, that's no spotted owl...but it is just the sort of animal that you say goes unmentioned in this article.

[...]

You are correct, the author did mention it in his jab at corporate America.

I've made three anti enviro-nazi posts in this thread - you only found one trivial bone to pick. That's good, maybe there's hope that you might someday come to your senses. I'll pray for it.


Save your prayers for your own nut bag, Scooty.

Your comments exhibit one clear, overriding signal --SHILL.
The only remaining question is, is that paid or unpaid?



I'm no schill, just a taxpayer tired of being railroaded by environmental radicals posing as scientists.

Too late, the prayer went out already.

And why so hateful? Does that somehow further your cause?


Too late for you.

You won't last long in the SHILL game being so tender-skinned.
I guess that you must be a newly-hatched troll, to possess such fragile feelings.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2012
How can markets operate correctly or objectively when a major cost signal is systematically obfuscated, for purely political reasons, to the point of even denying its existence?


The systematic obfuscation is cased by the govt. The proper way to address the issue is for the state to protect the property rights of ALL.
But the state decides it needs a certain industry or it needs to control the rivers or...regardless of any damage caused to any property owner.
That's how the 'progressive' movement started in the US. Large meat packers supported the creation of the FDA to limit their competitors.
Instead of creating a regulatory state, had free markets were allowed to be free, people could sue for bad products and competitors could compete on healthy products. That's how White Castle started. It was the first burger joint of its day to have its employees wear clean uniforms and run a clean restaurant.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
The proper way to address the issue is for the state to protect the property rights of ALL.
The totality of the global ecosystem is nobody's private property. Neither is the totality of the atmosphere, the totality of a large lake or sea or ocean or subterranean aquifer, the totality of available orbital space free of dangerous debris, etc. Thereby, these things (and more) are the guaranteed poster children for tragedy of the commons, absent any rule imposition from governments.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
The totality of the global ecosystem is nobody's private property.

Any pollution that affects your private property is caused by someone and they can therefore be sued. Unless they are protected from such suits by a govt.
And what's wrong with anyone from claiming property rights to a 'commons' if they are held accountable and responsible?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
Any pollution that affects your private property is caused by someone and they can therefore be sued.
Legal precedent shows that you cannot sue successfully unless you can conclusively trace that specific instance of pollution to your specific instance of damage. Global pollution that has global impacts, or even regional pollution that has regional impacts, particularly impacts that may be delayed by years, decades, and centuries, can almost never be tracked to any one particular source. So what you have here is a non-argument firmly grounded in impossibility.
And what's wrong with anyone from claiming property rights to a 'commons'
I'd like to see someone try claiming property rights to our planet's atmosphere, or to Lake Ontario, for instance.

Do you even have the slightest inkling as to how utterly, dementedly ridiculous you sound?

Oh, why do I bother....
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2012
Any pollution falling on your property is most probably from distant sources and in itself does not produce significnat harm.

But collectively, pollution from a vast array of sources may very well produce harm.

How do you intend to sue the world, Tard Boy?

"Any pollution that affects your private property is caused by someone and they can therefore be sued." - RyggTard

Fool!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
Suing polluters does nothing to empower the state. The state here is only doing its job, protecting private property.
The regulatory state is the path to power and control for the state AND for the defendant in potential suits. The potential defendants can craft regulations (laws) to limit there liability if they follow the regulations. This was sold to potential victims, citizens, as a more efficient means of controlling those dirty, polluters.
The result have been to increase the size and scope of the state to meddle in everyone's affairs and enabled violators to violate the property rights of others with the blessings of the state.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2012
Suing polluters does nothing to empower the state. The state here is only doing its job, protecting private property.
The regulatory state is the path to power and control for the state AND for the defendant in potential suits. The potential defendants can craft regulations (laws) to limit there liability if they follow the regulations. This was sold to potential victims, citizens, as a more efficient means of controlling those dirty, polluters.
The result have been to increase the size and scope of the state to meddle in everyone's affairs and enabled violators to violate the property rights of others with the blessings of the state.


riggsuckn strikes again with the famous, patented
Logic Inverter(TM), the design of which was partially inspired by the twisted, distorted neural pathways in riggsuckn's own brain, paid for by the American Enterprise Institute, and produced by Diebold.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
If Trinity is reading this, see how the 'progressives' react to rational solutions?
When their power is threatened all they can do is lash out.
BTW, property rights helped to stop elephant poaching when regulations failed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
Here is a perfect example as to why there needs to be doubt about "scientific studies".
http://naturalsoc...logizes/

http://opinionato...d-study/
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2012
Far be it from me to pock or stake any claim to any human 'right' during a fatal impact event extinguishing all life on earth.

R2. Any last words? ; )
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2012
Far be it from me to pock or stake any claim to any human 'right' during a fatal impact event extinguishing all life on earth.

R2. Any last words? ; )

They why not follow in the path of DPRK or any other socialist state and not even worry that humans have any rights?
Everyone dies.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
cantread85: You said: "Here is a perfect example as to why there needs to be doubt about "scientific studies".
http://naturalsoc...logizes"

Your conclusion (which you reiterate over and over) is that science that disagrees with your world view must be flawed. Instead, this is an example of why science should be trusted but verified. A fraction of studies are wrong or fraudulent, but they get caught (like cold fusion). Most are pretty good but can be improved (and are). Your myopic view that since a few studies are flawed none should be trusted must make you a real Luddite. (continued)
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
continued to cantread85: Your blind disregard for any article that supports AGW must stem from your own beliefs that AGW can't be true. However, there are thousands of studies that have been verified that show that AGW is occurring. The only question remaining is the pace and impact. Please show me your peer reviewed studies that refute that point. You also deride the "hockey stick" and imply it was fraudulent. In fact, it was the first attempt at synthesis of multiple signals to give a climate history and has been shown to be nearly correct. It has been improved since it first came out, but it still looks like a hockey stick. Can you please show me the peer reviewed paper that shows the "hockey stick" was a fraud?

Come on Cantread, put up or shut up. Rygg, ScooterG, and Untubby you can join in. You are the frauds in this area, not those making the effort to investigate and write about the science that is involved.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2012
thousands of studies that have been verified that show that AGW is occurring

Correlation is not causation.
That's ALL the AGWites have to claim any human produced CO2 is affecting climate.

dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2012
... there are thousands of studies that have been verified that show that AGW is occurring.


There are studies which show that climate is a variable. No study is necessary to establish that fact.

No one has established that climate variability is due to human activity. AGW is simply a socialist tool to redistribute resources.

Science should not be hijacked for political purposes. When it is, people rightly question the science.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2012
Yeah yeah yeah, we've heard all of that BS before. Here are the standard replies to your standard fallacies:

http://skepticals...dnum.php

ryggesogn2:

#2, #3, #5, #29, #31, #36, #69, #71, #73, #82, #85, #...

Aw hell, just read through that entire friggin' list.

dogbert:

You can start with #2 and #85...
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
thousands of studies that have been verified that show that AGW is occurring

Correlation is not causation.
That's ALL the AGWites have to claim any human produced CO2 is affecting climate.


Rygg: Once again you have stepped on your tongue. The heat trapping effect of CO2 is taught in a first course of radiant heat transfer. The effect on climate was predicted long before it could be measured. Now that it is being measured it goes along well with the prediction. That is how science moves forward.

"The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896."
From:

http://en.wikiped...e_effect

But you are dumb enough to think it came from Gore.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
The heat trapping effect of CO2 is taught in a first course of radiant heat transfer.

How does work at the molecular level?
The only major absorption band for CO2 is at 15 microns. I've run the Planck BB equation for this temperature and it really does not 'trap' much heat.
Now H2O is a much different story, but H2O is variable and is not convenient to model.
The CO2 story fails at first principles radiant transfer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2012
This is the type of experiment that makes sense:

http://www.john-d...fact.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2012
What happened to CLARREO and the similar calibrated radiometer program at NPL?
They were supposed to be traceable, calibrated radiometers on orbit to accurately measure the radiant exitance of the earth.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2012
See the following for details of underlying science (concerning radiative and convective heat tansfer physics):

http://journals.a...0.CO%3B2

http://journals.a...0.CO%3B2

http://www-ramana...pr72.pdf

The CO2 story fails at first principles radiant transfer.
It does no such thing. You fail at first principles of having any clue regarding the science over which you presume to bloviate.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2012
What happened to CLARREO and the similar calibrated radiometer program at NPL?
CLARREO is currently in "Pre-Phase A":

http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/

Its two currently conceptualized observatory satellites are slated for launch in 2018 and 2020, respectively:

http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/docs/CLARREO_Mission_Overview_Jan%202011.pdf

They were supposed to be traceable, calibrated radiometers on orbit to accurately measure the radiant exitance of the earth.
To **more accurately** measure, but not to measure for the first time. This data has been available for a long while (just at a lower resolution and with higher error margins):

http://www.skepti...fect.htm
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2012
See the following for details of underlying science (concerning radiative and convective heat tansfer physics):

http://journals.a...0.CO%3B2

The CO2 story fails at first principles radiant transfer.
It does no such thing. You fail at first principles of having any clue regarding the science over which you presume to bloviate.

They don't explain HOW 400ppm CO2 is supposed to be so bad. Models are fit to empirical data and since CO2 is easy to measure, it is an easy tweak to the models. That's all the papers show.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2012
This data has been available for a long while (just at a lower resolution and with higher error margins):


So why waste taxpayers money? The science is settled, right?

If CO2 was so significant is should show up in the daily temperature differences over very dry deserts over a period of decades.
Haven't seen that data.
If CO2 is trapping more heat over Death Valley or Arabia then the evening lows should be higher. Swings of up to 40F occur in dry atm.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2012
"Satellites should provide enough information to support national and international legislation. However, in most cases they are not accurate enough to distinguish between the predictions of different environmental models, and scientists cannot agree on their conclusions. "
http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS

Scientists can't agree?
If the science is settled, why waste the money?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
See the following for details of underlying science (concerning radiative and convective heat tansfer physics):

http://journals.a...0.CO%3B2

The CO2 story fails at first principles radiant transfer.
It does no such thing. You fail at first principles of having any clue regarding the science over which you presume to bloviate.

They don't explain HOW 400ppm CO2 is supposed to be so bad. Models are fit to empirical data and since CO2 is easy to measure, it is an easy tweak to the models. That's all the papers show.


Rygg: First, your idea that CO2 is active at only 15 microns is wrong. Where did you get that information? Try a standard Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer 4th ed by Siegel and Howell (pg 450).

Then realize that the band view is an approximation of the line view of quantum mechanics and your argument falls apart. (continued)
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2012
continued for rygg: Now try to realize that O2, N2, and Ar are not active thermal gases for radiative transport. Take them away and all that is left is the trace gases. You are right about water vapor and that is what makes the planet habitable. However, it, uniquely, can exist in 3 phases on Earth. It is the water cycle that, predominantly, drives the energy transport on the earth. If you understood quantum mechanics you would know that CO2 and H2O do not duplicate their lines throughout the bands and there are many lines where the CO2 fills in between H2O. Run the free program JavaHawks to get an idea of how much each contributes to emission/absorption. However, to discount the CO2 because it is a trace gas indicates you have no understanding of how thermal radiation works in active gases. Once again you are either lying or dumb as a fence post.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
They don't explain HOW 400ppm CO2 is supposed to be so bad.
They calculate the exact contributions of various greenhouse gases, CO2 included, from first principles and from the known detailed thermal absorption and emission spectra of each type f molecule, together with that molecule's distribution in the atmospheric column.
Models are fit to empirical data and since CO2 is easy to measure, it is an easy tweak to the models. That's all the papers show.
Those papers show no such thing, and none of the 3 I cited for you involve any kind of a model fit to empirical data. They do use empirical data as inputs, and then run fundamental physics on the inputs. There's nothing being "fit" to anything. Of course, I'm certain those papers are way over your pay grade, so of course you neither read them nor have the chops to comprehend them. Yet you feel qualified to comment on them and even dismiss them.

You are a classic case study for the topic at hand (per the above article.)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
So why waste taxpayers money?
Only you would call data gathering a waste of money.
The science is settled, right?
Yes, it is settled at your level of discussion. The remainder is in the details which are yet to be refined (e.g. hopefully enabling detailed regional climate forecasts as soon as the computational power for that materializes -- by some estimates, we'd need zettaflop computers to really get there). But the big-picture coarse-grained understanding is indeed very much settled science.
If CO2 was so significant is should show up in the daily temperature differences over very dry deserts over a period of decades.
It does show up (among many other things all pointing in the same direction):

http://skepticals...nced.htm
VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2012
Yup. And has been for the last 25 years.

The fact that you have ignored the science for the last 25 years says much about your anti-science Libertarian/Randite liedeology.

"The science is settled, right?" - RyggTard

"So why waste taxpayers money?" - RyggTard

What you claim is waste, is actually the advancement of science.

That you consider it waste, tells us much about your Libertarian/Randite liedeology.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2012
You still don't know the difference between weather and climate.

You poor Libertarian/Randite Tard.

How you can manage to keep yourself so ignorant in a sea of scientific knowledge is amazing, especially when the difference has been explained to you several dozen times that I have seen.

"If CO2 was so significant is should show up in the daily temperature differences over very dry deserts over a period of decades." - RyggTard

You have a mental disorder RyggTard. See a psychiatrist.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2012
On where to place the decimal point. The disagreement is perpetually on details that are growing ever more trivial as the big picture grows ever clearer - due to the science that you don't have the mental capacity to understand.

"Scientists can't agree?" - RyggTard

If you had the capacity, this wouldn't have to be explained to you.

Yet again.

"If the science is settled, why waste the money?" - RyggTard

The money spent that you claim is waste is actually spent on advancing science.

That you claim it is waste says much about your anti-science Libertarian/Randite ideology.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2012
From one of the Pirated Emails.

"The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" - Kevin Trenberth

Perhaps RyggTard will now understand Kevin Trenberth's very correct sentiment.

But I suspect that as an enemy of science, RyggTard will continue to dishonestly misrepresent it.

"Satellites should provide enough information to support national and international legislation. However, in most cases they are not accurate enough to distinguish between the predictions of different environmental models, and scientists cannot agree on their conclusions. " - Quoted by RyggTard
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2012
What happened to CLARREO and the similar calibrated radiometer program at NPL?

Budget Cuts have delayed those missions.

"We need to manufacture an economic crisis in order to assure that there is no alternative to a smaller government." - Libertarian Jeb Bush - Imprimus magazine 1995
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2012
Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer

Is the book you referred to before where the gases are super heated and the book is about furnaces?
Tausch
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2012
Then why not follow in the path of DPRK or any other socialist state and not even worry that humans have any rights? Everyone dies. - R


For the sake of socialism just pretend you have only today to live. We welcome you aboard. And will overlook your lack of scientific thinking as well.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2012
Then why not follow in the path of DPRK or any other socialist state and not even worry that humans have any rights? Everyone dies. - R


For the sake of socialism just pretend you have only today to live. We welcome you aboard. And will overlook your lack of scientific thinking as well.


Socialists only want to live for today?
Then that's about how long you will live when you fail to plan for next day.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.