"All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident. And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial, about everything from climate change to COVID-19, is rampant, informed by fallacies of all kinds. But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19. Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection. Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way." Looks like we are picking before. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-false-logic-behind-science-denial/
Diving For Dollars Science. Global Warming New Medicine Studies Environmental Impact Reports If it's Science, It Is Trustworthy. Moi Needed An on the team to isolate insulin
Science isn't the problem. The problem is the interpretation of the science. Climate change is a perfect example of lousy interpretations create massive cause for irrational fear by liberals, communists, socialists and the rest of the loony leftists. Same with the COVID19 fearmongering. The climate always changes and is natural, not caused by mankind.
The loony left said after Al Gore's stupid film that the shores of the continents would be underwater in 10 years of when he said it. Well, it's been 14 years and not an inch higher. It's not the science. It's the faulty interpretation of the science. The manipulation of the facts has always been a problem as stats can be manipulated to whatever you are trying to throw up out there. Global warming with goofy hockey stick theories and crap like that is a great example. Another example is the so-called idea that life was created in some primordial soup nonsense where the building blocks of life somehow interacted in the warm oceans and poof! Life! It takes enzymes to get the building blocks to interact and form life. But, if evolution is true, enzymes are by far more advanced and evolved than the 4 building blocks of life; carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. So, who created the enzymes? Bass Ackwards!!! When you read in science books, papers and other periodicals about this, the atheist evolutionists always make this case that something happened in the warm waters and poof, life. They end up using words that I call fuzzy words, "may have", "could have" and so one which are not scientific conclusions at all. Just scientists perplexed they cannot answer where those dang enzymes come from.
You're not talking about science. The science is not open to debate. Since the first discovery of warming in the 70s, the question is always how much. That's been a tough nut to crack, the oceans absorbed more warmth than we expected, the arctic warmed much faster than expected. I live near Portland, Maine. We're going to be a major port, because suddenly there is a Northwest Passage. That was impossible, and now it's routine. The permafrost is now neither perma or frosty. There are vast amounts of methane in the Northern regions, and they are escaping or burning. It's actually better if they burn. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Climate science is a multi-disciplinary effort now. Outfits like NASA put sophisticated devices in orbit to measure it, supercomputers calculate the effect. Back in the 80s, when this science was getting going, they used computers little more complicated than a pocket calculator. But each era has found the same thing, and it's an existential threat to humanity.
Climate changes are caused by many factors, including mankind. Anyone who denies human influence on climate change denies science. He prefers political lies over science. Like Donald Trump does.
HAHAHAH!!! LOL!!! It's not open for debate... Oh, my side is hurting! The interpretation of the scientific data is most certainly open for debate. In the 1970's genius, we were looking for an new Ice Age. Again, no shoreline has been put under water. Want to try again? The problem with the left is that they think they cannot be wrong on anything. Pelosi gets caught in a salon with no mask on and she blames the salon workers and owners. Typical leftist. There is no man-made global warming.
Enzymes are proteins made by all living organisms and are found everywhere in nature. They are biologically active proteins that catalyze biochemical reactions ... So, again, how could this be? You have the cart before the horse. To have living things, you need enzymes for the creation of life. But, they are produced by living things. Go figure. Try not to let your head explode.
1) That is settled science, has been for a generation. 2) Two scientists made a mistake, and nearly lost their jobs over it. They had to retract their paper on cooling because it was wrong. What happened is the popular press loved the idea. Which only pissed the other scientists even more. So no, that was never accepted science. 3) That is what is known as propaganda. AGW is settled science.
I read the Scientific American article and what it doesn't mention is the role of propaganda. Propaganda definition: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Many individuals cannot differentiate between truth and propaganda. If propaganda supports one's preconceived notions then it is often believed. I have debated people for a couple of years on the subject of global warming and nearly every conservative that I have debated rejects anthropogenc global warming. I think it is 100% but those individuals are not an accurate representation \of conservative thought.They generally believe the propaganda that they read from right-wing sources and reject mainstream sources. Most of them don't bother to read articles or go to websites that represent mainstream science. The role of the internet has contributed to individuals tuning in to the sources that confirm their biases. The science supporting AGW is complex and requires considerable time and effort on the part of individuals. Few people spend the time to get to the truth and so the general public is ignorant about climate science and therefore easily manipulated by propaganda. It is just easier for one to accept or deny a scientific claim based on some prejudice, then it is to spend the time and effort in trying to understand the subject. Propaganda is everywhere, one person reads an appealing piece of propaganda and then passes it on to others, who also pass it on to others.
In fairness you can get the same type of response from people with' left' wing political views as well . IMO they are just as willing to jump on conspiracy theory band wagons (5G, vaccinations etc) as right wingers. The issue is not what side of politics your on. Its how extreme your views are. From a science perspective the moment you start rejecting any news out of hand that doesn't comply with your own narrow 'world view', one you have built based on information sources totally lacking in scientific validity then there is really no difference between left or right. A closed mind is a closed mind.
Science is always open to debate. Liberal loonyism and fearmongering is another issue altogether. The so-called climate change 'science' is in no way proven. We have seen false predictions, people falsifying data, and other things in the name of the global warming farce. The climate changes, it has changed from warmer than anything humanity has ever experienced to ice ages, all without the interference of whiny liberals...
What a science says is determined by the scientists in that particular discipline, not internet trolls. AGW became settled science a generation ago, on this planet. Not sure which planet you are on, can't be Earth.
Al Gore used real scientists, look how that turned out. In fact your so-called scientists have been predicting nonsense for decades now, when are you folks going to start demanding some accountability for all the wrong predictions? AGW is not settled science, not by any means. Climate changes, we've known that, man's role is completely unknown because man is only a tiny piece of the climate picture. The primary drivers of climate remain the magnetosphere and the sun, neither of which man has any control over...
That you have chop up quotes tells me all I need to know about you. Incapable of understanding larger ideas so you have minimize it to something your tiny lizard brain can understand. Got it...
Been following the science since the 80s. In college I got the standard methods class, but I also studied the history and philosophy of science. Btw, right wingers project like crazy, it's boring, and we already knew what you're not. So you can stop faking it any old time..
You haven't been paying very close attention then. Since the 80's the predictions have changed a dozen times, data has been manipulated dozens of times, and none of it has proven anything about man's alleged culpability in any changes to the climate. To claim it is settled is ridiculous and presumptuous. The only thing this farce has created was a cottage industry of liars to keep huge amounts of money flowing into their fraudster coffers...
Throwing Al Gore's name in the mix is misdirection. Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades. Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any; it was discovered in the 1820's and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950's.There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming and there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it's caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.
The greenhouse effect existed long before we knew about it, and the climate got warmer and colder beyond anything we have experienced, all without the ability to blame humans. To blame humans now is nothing more than arrogance and guilt. The predictions we've seen have been continuously wrong. Not to mention the simple reality that any number of events, be it a significant volcanic eruption or such can wipe out all those predictions in a moment...
