Guest rant by David Middleton
Science denial not limited to political right
September 19, 2017
In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.
[…]
That’s like saying in the wake of [insert random words], many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.
The article actually gets worse as it goes along. It’s based on a “publication” by a grad student and psych professor. Unsurprisingly, the “paper” cites the following “references”…
Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222. Link
Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622–633. Link
Mooney C. (2011, 9 30). Newt Gingrich deceives on stem cell research, mocks evolution. Retrieved on March 15, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/30/332730/gingrich-deceives-stem-cell-research
Mooney C. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—And reality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Mooney C. (2014, 9 11). Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines
The “funny thing” about politically oriented skepticism, is that scientifically literate liberals are more likely to buy into the Gorebal Warming scam than scientifically literate conservatives:
Of course, this divergence could simply be due to the nature of the scientific literacy. Geoscientists are nearly three times more likely to think that climate change is natural than government employees are.
Featured Image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now James, shows why he has no credibility here,doesn’t even try to address Willis research at all,it is FALLACIES all the way now.
” James Ardmore
September 24, 2017 at 12:31 pm Edit
@If Eschenbach had a modicum of integrity, he would publish his so called debunking in a peer reviewed journal. Shakun’s work remains a ground breaker, while Eschenbach remains unknown, (except in junk science circles)
and,
James Ardmore
September 24, 2017 at 12:39 pm Edit
@Sunsettommy
Willis Eschenbach has a California Massage Certificate, and a BA in Psychology!! And you rely on him to debunk peer reviewed scientific journal papers. Unbelievable. .”
It is clear you have no idea why Willis easily destroyed Shakun’s paper. He found several OBVIOUS holes in it, You don’t try to defend Shakun at all,not even discuss anything surrounding it either.
Meanwhile he continues to ignore my comment about a number of published papers that doesn’t agree with Shakun at all:
“REFERENCES
Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/”
you also continue to ignore this too:
“You never did show that….. “Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.”
is wrong since you never addressed it at all,just run to a bad paper that was destroyed 5 years ago. You also ignored a number of papers listed here completely,despite that they are accepted science today,while Shakun is not.”
You are below the gutter quality troll. You have no demonstrated debate skill to show here. You never stop trying to talk down to me.
You are pathetic.
A useful reply to “if it’s not published in a peer-reviewed journal we can’t take it seriously” is this:
I don’t have to own a car to point out that yours has no wheels.
He he,
short,simple and to the point.
But I am never this simple,like to pile it on someone who gets so absurd,unreasonable. I hate it when people like him avoid a real debate,pile on personal attacks on authors and push fallacies that doesn’t address the persons arguments.
He does do one thing well,he shows how feeble his replies have been to the world, who wants to read an honest debate on anything,have to give him that.
The great Emmy Noether was never allowed any official position (because she was a woman), but it is hard to imagine modern physics without her insights into symmetries and conservation laws. Were it not for enlightened supporters like David Hilbert, her work might have remained unknown.
A useful response to you is: “When amateur scientists cite the comments of someone with a California Massage Certificate as an expert critique of peer reviewed Science, we have the blind leading the blind”.
A new low for even wwwt.
Roger that… 😎
@Charles the moderator
A useful reply to you is: “When amateur scientists cite the comments of someone with a California Massage Certificate as an expert critique of peer reviewed Science, we have the blind leading the blind”.
A new low, even for wwwt
James Ardmore, aka Warren Beeton…
Willis has an IQ of about 170, and unlike many of the people who have such high IQ’s, he’s a genuine person who doesn’t give a whit about titles or diplomas. He’s a polymath. And if you’d ever met him, you’d understand.
See here’s the thing, and I’m pretty sure I speak for Charles when I say this, we don’t give a shit what you think, especially when you create fake names to get your comments published.
Meanwhile, you lecture Willis about “integrity”. Say hello to the troll bin.
I’ve never met Willis in person… But, if I wanted someone to look over my shoulder and check my work, in any subject, Willis would top the list.
Anthony you are mistaken,
I live every moment for approval from Mr. Ardmore. I am devastated by his negative feelings toward me. I cannot eat or sleep. I’m not sure what I’m going to do moving forward. Sigh.
This would be one of the longest blog posts ever on WUWT .It looks like it has come to a stop as the moderator has tipped a couple of trolls into the bin .I posted a challenge back 10 days ago ago on this thread to J A , Griffy and Sam Best and anyone else to prove that the methane from farmed livestock will warm the world by .05C in the next ten years .I would need proof that will stand up to scientific and statistical scrutiny. No one has attempted to even try yet the these emissions could be included in an emissions trading scheme in New Zealand and other country.s imposing further costs on the agricultural sector when absolutely no proof exists that these emissions cause warming.Methane from livestock is cyclic and the methane is broken down in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and H2O and then reabsorbed by plants .