Are the deniers, generally speaking, sad "can't do" people?

Question

You often hear deniers claim that things are too complicated to understand and thus any attempt to model or understand our natural surroundings will result in failure.

Because they don't understand the science, or the potential to gain understanding, do they think no one can?

Is their lack of faith in their own knowledge bleeding over onto those who have devoted their lives to studying science?

Do you think it's fair to broadcast such a level of ignorance onto climate scientists; those who are the acme of climate knowledge?

Answer 1

Yes, one of the traits I've found deniers tend to have in common is that they assume if they don't understand a concept, nobody does. Jim in particular loves to claim that we just don't understand how the climate works, so *clearly* that means climate change must be natural. His ego is simply out of control, and I think it's pretty obvious the reason he makes these claims is because he doesn't understand basic climate science, so he assumes nobody does. Same with Eric - he doesn't understand how non-linear systems can be modeled, so he assumes nobody does.



Another aspect of their "can't do attitude" is with respect to global warming solutions. Constantly deniers are telling us that we can't replace fossil fuels with alternative fuel and energy sources. We can't reduce our emissions significantly without crippling the economy. It's amazing how patriotic they claim to be, and yet how little faith they have in American ingenuity.

Answer 2

P1: No, I don't find them sad at all.



P2: No I think that a number understand the science just as well. One issue typically in science , is the measurement systems used (accuracy and bias), as well as the statistical analysis of data in the attempt to find the red X. Seems to be the case here as well. Many feel it is attached to one main factor (CO2), but many realize that such as variation (if it does actually exist) in a complex system is likely the root cause of the interaction of many factors - especially when the cause of the forcing empiric (the sun and the core and sub mantle variation) are so easily removed. Also, being a climate scientist (or any scientist for that matter) does not make one an expert on measurements (accuracy and validation), or statistical analysis.



P3: Not sure what you mean. But I think you are describing what has or should occur in the scientific method of peer review. Unfortunately it does get a bit picky.



P4: Ugh..Yeah, It's a free country and this is a forum for doing just that. Or, are you asking this from a country that does not have free expression (yet)?



Edit: Gary F>> You are probably right. I suppose that many deniers do not know what a Fast Fourier Transform is or how they are applied. But then, I'm guessing that just as many people that post yea/nea really don't know either way. Where I work we periodically use them to analyze noise and vibration characteristcs of complex systems to help determine if certain frequencies match up to certain subcompent critical frequencies or at least start to pinpoint the root cause of generation. When you think about it, noise in a system is a lot like temperture - isn't it? On that note, I will say that a number of Phd levels and scientist we have worked with or consulted mayt have an expertise in the area of noise measurement, but what they don't always grasp (or simply do not specialize in and just as easily defer) is the methodology of verifying the root cause of the noise and identifying countermeasures.

Answer 3

People who actively and repeatedly deny what a whole army of proven experts have been saying for decades (cigarettes increase risk of cancer, housing prices can go down as well as up, people did land on the moon, Obama really was born in Hawaii and would be eligible to be president by virtue of his mother being a U.S. citizen even if he'd been born in the Canal Zone like McCain or in a different universe like some folks here) have to start telling lies eventually. It begins with little innocent ones at first, then bigger and more deliberate ones. Over time, serial liars and deniers tend to lie about or deny a growing range of clearly plausible, if not blatantly obvious things.



The climate change science deniers here typically lie about or deny



their actual knowledge of science

their cut-and-paste "learning" from denier bloggers (who copied Limbaugh, who copied Inhofe who inhaled the farts of Crichton who copied the house that Jack pretended to build, etc.)

the lies they told the week before, especially if those lies contradict this weeks'

the past exposures of their lies (another reason why it is sometimes wise to copy pages here)

and they especially like to lie about scientists by falsely branding them liars



So they actually CAN DO a lot of things:

they CAN look in the mirror and see someone or some group they've been brainwashed to hate

they CAN be very artful at denying how ridiculous they actually look and sound on regular basis

they CAN very tenaciously lie in order to make themselves feel better

they CAN endlessly deny all the things they can't do

Answer 4

Dana --



>>Constantly deniers are telling us that we can't replace fossil fuels with alternative fuel and energy sources.<<



Yeah, as if we have a choice. Warming or no warming, this is not the 1950s/60s.



======



knuckledown ---



>> One issue typically in science, is the measurement systems used (accuracy and bias), as well as the statistical analysis of data<<



Climate scientists have always understood this more than anyone because faulty data prohibits research. Hence, the enormous amount of time and effort they have spent tackling problems of temporal stationarity and spatial homogeneity.



Many areas of climate science rely entirely on complex statistical analysis. I’d wager that 99/100 deniers have never heard of time series analysis, let alone know anything about it. Similarly, 99/100 of the deniers who constantly sling the “natural cycle” explanation have no idea what time and frequency domains are – or spectral analysis – and it would be hysterical to hear their thoughts on what FFT stands for.

Answer 5

People are like sheep that follow a leader wherever they go.

In this case the leaders are the uninformed deniers who refuse to believe something they wish was not true. I take the word of thousands of climate scientific experts over the rants of the likes of Limbaugh and Beck any day.

Answer 6

Gravity has been scientifically studied a lot longer that CO2 effects on the atmosphere. Yet we still don't know why or how masses attract each other. Yes, we do know the force they attract each other with and that it's inversely proportional to the distance.



So let's apply that to modeling. We can model things like iron balls, feathers or leaves falling in a vacuum and come up with some very accurate predictions. However, if we tried to model the flight of a falling leaf from a real tree in a real forest to try to predict where it would land and how long it would take, we could not. Even if we know the exact mass of the leaf, the height off the ground and mass of the Earth, we could not use the Law of Gravity to predict its final resting place. There are too many external variables.



In an analogy, what climate science is trying to do is take the measured lab properties of CO2 IR absorption and radiation and apply them to the real world atmosphere.and predict the exact effect. Well actually, they don't predict the exact effect they have a "range" for the "likely" effect of 2-4.5C of warming for a doubling of CO2. In science that's a massive range and even that range is contested.



So yes, and whatever else you might call me, I have "can't do" attitude towards the CO2 hypothesis.

Answer 7

Chicken Littles are the sad ones. They run around thinking the sky is falling and really it is just a nice day. They think humans must be destroying the planet because humans are necessarily bad. How can you not be sad when you are a member of that ilk.



There are plenty of people that have devoted their life to studying climate that don't share chicken little's views. It isn't scientific to pretend to know more than you do. It is in fact the antithesis of science. That is why many alarmists are fairly compared to religious fanatics. They believe without looking at all the facts. They believe because it just feels right to them.



Note: I read your question first and I see you were just responding to Richie's question with your own. Your question is less offensive that way.

Answer 8

Yes exactly! Then they go around and claiming the people who try to do and do do, are the ones who have their own characteristics.



For instance when they say that Global Warming is a hoax. in fact the deniers are the hoaxters! Then they go and say Global Warming is a religion when in fact the denialists are running a cult!

When deniers cannot do they tell the people who can do that they cannot do.

When deniers cannot understand or refuse to understand simple science they have no right to obstruct those who do.



Whatever it is its absolutely unethical and irresponsible for them to obstruct the world from managing the risks of climate change.



Edit: No its not at all right to pass on their ignorance to scientists and others just cause they don't understand or like the facts.



@Eric C, If you don't try you have written yourself off and that is the definition of "can't do people". No model can ever be perfect but we all know that. But the attempt gives you a lot more knowledge into how you failed. Global Warming / CC is happening now right before our eyes so we have a real life model to help us make better models for the future.



@Jim Z Knock off your typical denialist rant. Its not about chicken littles its about the facts being indisputable and doing something about it and not continuing what we learned from the caveman days. You can't deny there are 6 billion+ in this world and you can't deny that we have been destroying the natural CO2 sinks and pumping mega amounts of CO2 in the air. You should no better.



Note: Jim Z does not present facts other than, it is cause I said so. If one devotes their life to studying climate and came up with the conclusions you did Jim, then I would have to say they haven't learned a whole lot out of their career.



@Peter J If you don't like being called a denier then maybe you should try to disprove the mounds of evidence or face being called a denier. Its simple prove the rate of increase since the industrial revolution is slower or equal to a natural rate. I've already shown in Dents graph that it naturally took almost 6000 years at a period in the past to rise 0.8 degrees C! Thats the rise that humans made happen in 160 years.



Edit: Ok since the deniers are not up to the task, how about this in the Medevil Ice Age it took 600 YEARS TO DROP AND RISE 0.8 degrees C!

Jim Z, Peter J and Dent have been TRUMPED!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



Edit2: Well ok I'll give you the rise may have been closer to 400 years.

Not only does that trounce you but it proves you guys are liars! Cause the 0.8 C rise was only to the high level of the Medevil Warming period and then it spiked at 3 times the rate of that rise when the industrial revolution started.

You guys have now been doubly trounced now! HA!

Answer 9

you clearly have very little understanding of real science,it's methodology, or how the world is run,stick with your green religion it's what you are best at, and don't try and think about ideas that are too big and complex for you.

Answer 10

People who think they can model a complex chaotic non-linear system that is NEVER in a state of equilibrium who are unscientific.



Edit: Pegminer please explain to me why I am silly. Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems—from ocean currents to cloud formation—that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Answer 11

Normally, I ignore the pejorative "denier."



Ottawa Mike, that was one of the best most insightful answers, I've seen on here yet.



The star is to find you, not the question.

Answer 12

those who are the acme of climate knowledge?

they must use these

http://web.archive.org/web/20080212084642/http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/acme.html