Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

I think it must have been 2017 when I went to all the political forums in which I was participating in and explained that I was not going to bother engaging in scientific debates about climate change.

The majority of debates back then were like this one
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...science-denier.614100/page-10#post-1074484760

This is not to criticize the posters who helped spread that disinformation. It's just to illustrate. The above is fabricated misquote of Carl Sagan that you will likely find in many science denialist websites. It usually goes something like "Carl Sagan was wrong!"

Copy pasting some webpage you found on a science denialist website take 2 minutes. They don't even need to read the arguments. This is how they spread misinformation and pseudo-science. They would do this using made-up data. Sometimes even REAL data taken out of context. Before 2017 I would spend hours researching and ALWAYS demonstrated that the copy-pasted nonsense was anti-science.

Then I came to the conclusion: why waste my time? I stopped. The only thing anybody who doesn't have hours to spend needs to know are three things:

1- Scientific Evidence: The website https://www.ipcc.ch/ provides references to over 100 years of studies about AGW

2- Epistemological Evidence: There hasn't been a single peer-reviewed study in over 20 years that denies the AGW Scientific Consensus. Which, BTW, is not about "opinions" like it is in other areas. In science a consensus is about studies.

3- Reality Evidence: In 2017 I stopped debating AGW science when 2016 was found to be the warmest year on record (I think it still is, if I'm not mistaken). Nine of the 10 warmest years on record happened in the 10 previous years. Today this is still true. And we see the evidence of more violent weather-related catastrophes constantly, as was predicted.

To me, 1 and 2 is enough. But 3 simply demonstrates how foolish it is to continue denying facts.

 

Yes the planet is warming. You CAN’T debate climate science with folks like me because the evidence always supports my posts. And you know very little about climate science. You make clear in the thread you link to you do not understand the link between fossil fuel emissions and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses. This is why you can’t debate climate science. You can only edit out Sagan’s words and engage in fallacious arguments.

In your example YOU edit out what Sagan actually said. What I posted is verifiably correct. He said exactly what I said he said. And his prediction was WRONG.

Now, Sagan was a smart dude. An important contributor to what we know. But unfortunately he was incorrect at times. When predictions are incorrect it’s time to go back and figure out why. But we have to first admit the error. Sagan did so. Golem for some reason must edit Sagan’s words to avoid admitting the error.


This is dangerous on matters of science. Errors must be identified and corrected, not denied. Others have done so. Even institutions like the IPCC saw the error in what Sagan predicted and has corrected for it. There is no value in denying science or facts, yet there is a part of the climate movement that does so. The OP here is a demonstration of that. Sagan’s words must be edited by the OP to support this denial of facts.

To be clear, the only person misquoting Sagan is the OP of this thread. Sagan said everything I claimed he said and it’s all on record at PF. And Sagan was incorrect in his prediction.

 

I hate climate denialists

 

The prediction says "middle to the end" of the next century, we aren't to the middle yet so he's not wrong.

 

But you are a science denialist. 1. If it is honest then about half of those sites while the cheerfully agree that climate is changing as it always has CO2 is at best a minimal part of the problem.

2. Patent nonsense.

3. Cold is way than hot historically. The Medieval Warm period produce world wide golden ages in which mankind generally flourished every where on the other hand the little ice age was a world wide disaster. In which the death and suffering and famine were wide spread.

 

Actually Golem provides a very important service. He demonstrates the inability of the “climate alarmist” demographic to deal with facts.

When the vast majority of what these folks post is verifiable incorrect or just pure fallacy it exposes the bankruptcy of their positions.

Over time this bankruptcy will be rejected and those of us who follow actual science (all science, not just bits and pieces) will be able to be even more effective at healing the planet. Many of us are actively engaged in doing so now. With actions that actually help people now, not just fallacy laden posts.

Be thankful for folks like Golem. I routinely thank such folks for being here to demonstrate the bankruptcy of “climate science by fallacy” they subscribe to with their fallacious content.

 

Important thing is that they care enough to respond to my post. You did what was expected of you. Carry on!

 

Kudos for at least having a logical argument. I’m of course open to evidence there is any possibility of him being correct. Show me that 1985 emissions levels and atmospheric CO2 rates of increase can produce several degrees C of warming by 2100. Show me the science.

I can say global temps will be 5°C lower by 2050-2100 and not be “wrong”. But there is no supporting evidence for my claim and much evidence that shows it to be erroneous. Same with Sagan’s 1985 claim.

That really is the beauty of appeal to emotion arguments like wild climate predictions.

 

Sure "they" respond, but being the butt of a joke is not much of a life goal.

 

Well we have to the end of the century so it will be a while.

 

I suspect that they are more like your post about Sagan, in which you didn't even bother to check your statement before making it.

I don't know anything about anything. I just do what my sig says: research. When I'm absolutely SURE that what I'm going to say is supported by evidence, then I say it. You do it the other way around. First you make a claim and, if somebody calls you out, then you START doing research to find some way to justify.... now WHAT you said, but the fact that you said it.

In any case, climate science is easy: if what you say comes from a trustworthy scientific source, it's factual. If it comes from a science denialist page (which you have done), it's most likely nonsense.

The deposition was about 16 minutes long. Obviously I quote only the relevant part.

In case anybody is wondering:
@557 says: "Sagan predicted several degrees C rise in temp by 2050 with 1985 levels of emissions."
Sagan says: "...the present rate of increase of minor infrared absorbing gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, that there will be a several centigrade degree temperature increase on the Earth’s global average by the middle to the end of the next century. “

Notice the differences? Let me know if you need me to explain the difference between "by 2050" and "by the middle to the end of the [21st] Century" Or if you find the distinction between "levels" and "rate of increase" difficult to grasp.

The link in the OP contains the full quote that @557 finally provided after I insisted (several times) that he provided a quote.

 

Because you know it's a hoax and you've run out of ways to defend it?

 

So it was 2017 but here you are still talking about it.
This reminds me of people that say they're going to leave a group or a page but first they're going to announce it and then they're going to stick around to see what people have to say about it.

Not you personally of course but the people that feel the need to announce what they're not going to do and then stick around to check it out.

 

I just don't see many walking the walk. Lets agree that green house gases keep heat in. Why do those pretending to care about the environment continue to be part of the problem?

Living here in super-liberal Los Angeles, I see people driving their single occupancy vehicles while buses and trains are empty. The drive thru line is always full of people eager to consume animal products.

I see politicians with their hands in our pockets, but don't see much genuine concern.

 

I'm not talking about global warming. I'm talking about science denialists. AGW is simply on of the clearest examples of how anti-science nonsense if propagated.

 

Wrong on so many counts. IPCC is a politically driven agency of the United Nation that mixes social issues with climate study - heavy on the social issues and betterment of society, less so on scientific information.

You're "reality evidence" is baseless, widely disputed and and disproved by other peer reviewed studies. Oh, and the 1935-1936 Dust Bowl years were had higher temps that 2023.

And, once again, for possibly comprehensive Few, if any serious students or professionals in climatology dispute man's contribution to global warming; most will concede CO2 has a 5-10% contribution to the temperature gains.

 

What planet do you think they should move to?

You're still displaying a kindergarten level understanding of what dealing with AGW looks like. Here...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-do-we-do-about-climate-change.611869/

 

Makes no difference what IPCC is. What matters is that the scientific peer-reviewed studies can be accessed THERE.

Never seen anybody dispute temperature reading. But if there is a webpage that disputes that the Earth is round, I guess there probably are.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to this thread.

 

If 2050 is not relevant why did he bring it up? It’s funny how people exclude parts of statements they don’t like.

 

You're the only one bringing up 2050. If there is any year that is irrelevant, that would be it, since the 2nd half of the 21st Century doesn't even START before 2051. Sagan's estimate (it's not even a prediction) would end on December 31, 2100. The day after, January 1, 2101 the 23rd Century starts.

 

Me too! Thank God for AOC!

 

No one who belongs to the party that thinks that men can magically become women has any business calling anyone else a science denier

 

I'm personally bummed, then again I enjoy disaster reruns from the 50/60s especially Gilligan, and Gilligan's Island and that dopey Maynard G Krebs.

 

The climate is changing. It has been changing for billions of years.

Man affects the climate. There is no doubt and that effect is likely warming because there is no way to cause cooling.

Those are not the issues. The issues are: How much has man affected the weather? How much can man realistically change the climate for the better or stop the changes? How accurate are the forecasts?

Generally people believe what they do about AGW for one of three reasons. 1. They understand the science. 2. They believe the vast preponderance of scientists believe in AGW. 3. They believe because that is what they are told that they should believe.

1. Very few understand the science well enough to understand whether AGW is real. I believe that almost no one on this forum is qualified to make a judgment.

2. In general, we have been deceived. There is no 97% or 100% consensus by scientists.

3. Most fall into this category. They believe because they are told that is what they should believe.

 

Nothing can beat that comparison