Friday, May 23, 2008 . 5/23/2008
You'll never believe this.I just got the book When Good Thinking Goes Bad today, and it's supposed to be a sort of "guidebook" on how critical thinking can go bad and be inconsistent. Thing is, the author of this book is an AGW (human-caused global warming) denier. In fact, he has a whole section on it.
In it, he admits that he is no expert on the subject but continues to sound like a denier anyway and making the mistake that there is a "debate" on whether or not global warming is happening or not. There is no debate among scientists whatsoever, only deniers making it seem like there is. Like creationists saying that there's still a debate on whether evolution is real or not, for example.
Simply put, the author of this book might as well have replaced "global warming" in that section with "evolution". It's almost funny, in an ironic way, that this guy has written a guidebook for faulty skepticism while doing that very thing. There is a difference between skepticism and denialism, Buck-O.
Labels: Denialism, Global Warming
0 Comments - Post/view commentsThursday, April 10, 2008 . 4/10/2008
Global Warming Not a Cosmic Swindle
Skeptics who argue that global warming is caused by cosmic rays rather than man-made greenhouse gases have been dealt another blow.
Some who question the human-induced global warming scenario argue that changes in the intensity of these rays, which are caused by variations in solar activity, affect the cloud cover of the Earth, allowing heat from the sun to build up, and accounting for the rise of global temperatures in recent years. But a new study detailed in the Institute of Physics’ journal, Environmental Research Letters, finds no link between the incoming cosmic rays and global cloud cover. The research was led by Terry Sloan of Lancaster University in the UK and Arnold Wolfendale of Durham University, also in the UK.
The sun’s rays are of course the key drivers of Earth’s climate as they are the main source of our planet’s energy.
However, some skeptics have argued that changes in solar activity are responsible for the current period of warming. They argue that the sun's magnetic fields cause fluctuations in the intensity of cosmic rays, which they contend can ionize gases in Earth’s atmosphere, creating small particles that collect water to form low-level clouds. These clouds, in turn, scatter incoming light, causing a cooling effect.
Among the skeptics, a small group of scientists say it is a decrease in cosmic rays that has decreased the amount of low-level clouds, causing the current phase of warming. A recent British television special, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which aimed to debunk current scientific understanding of the causes of global warming, named this as the main cause of Earth’s rising temperatures.
But the new study found no significant link between the intensity of cosmic rays hitting the Earth and low-level cloudiness. Its findings "suggest that it is fairly unlikely that [cosmic rays] have any discernable effect on the cloudiness," said Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, who was not involved with the study.
"If the effect were important, then we would have seen it," Benestad told LiveScience. "[Cosmic rays] cannot account for the present warming trend."
Benestad also pointed out that no long-term trend in cosmic ray intensity that corresponds with the decades-long rise in global temperatures has been detected, which is a bigger stumbling block for those who support cosmic rays as the source of global warming.
[Source: LiveScience]
Skeptics who argue that global warming is caused by cosmic rays rather than man-made greenhouse gases have been dealt another blow.
Some who question the human-induced global warming scenario argue that changes in the intensity of these rays, which are caused by variations in solar activity, affect the cloud cover of the Earth, allowing heat from the sun to build up, and accounting for the rise of global temperatures in recent years. But a new study detailed in the Institute of Physics’ journal, Environmental Research Letters, finds no link between the incoming cosmic rays and global cloud cover. The research was led by Terry Sloan of Lancaster University in the UK and Arnold Wolfendale of Durham University, also in the UK.
The sun’s rays are of course the key drivers of Earth’s climate as they are the main source of our planet’s energy.
However, some skeptics have argued that changes in solar activity are responsible for the current period of warming. They argue that the sun's magnetic fields cause fluctuations in the intensity of cosmic rays, which they contend can ionize gases in Earth’s atmosphere, creating small particles that collect water to form low-level clouds. These clouds, in turn, scatter incoming light, causing a cooling effect.
Among the skeptics, a small group of scientists say it is a decrease in cosmic rays that has decreased the amount of low-level clouds, causing the current phase of warming. A recent British television special, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which aimed to debunk current scientific understanding of the causes of global warming, named this as the main cause of Earth’s rising temperatures.
But the new study found no significant link between the intensity of cosmic rays hitting the Earth and low-level cloudiness. Its findings "suggest that it is fairly unlikely that [cosmic rays] have any discernable effect on the cloudiness," said Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, who was not involved with the study.
"If the effect were important, then we would have seen it," Benestad told LiveScience. "[Cosmic rays] cannot account for the present warming trend."
Benestad also pointed out that no long-term trend in cosmic ray intensity that corresponds with the decades-long rise in global temperatures has been detected, which is a bigger stumbling block for those who support cosmic rays as the source of global warming.
[Source: LiveScience]
I find it funny how there are still idiots (i.e some of the comments to that article) that deny AGW. I mean really people, you really think you know better than climate scientists, who are experts in this sort of thing? May I remind you that even NASA is involved?
Labels: Global Warming
0 Comments - Post/view commentsTuesday, April 08, 2008 . 4/08/2008
I think I can see how some people are still in denial about human-caused global warming (or AGW). Every once in a while I'll see commercials that say we can all cooperate to save the planet, and there will be people saying the same thing. The term "saving the planet" is a bit extreme, I think. In reality that is not what we are going to do, at least not really. When we're gone the planet will recover itself. It always has, after all. The Earth itself doesn't care that we're here. But future generations of people (and all species) will care. In reality, we are saving ourselves.Another thing is how sometimes denialists are presented as actually having a case when they don't.
I remember Singer was on the news about a week ago and he said that he didn't have a doubt in his mind that AGW wasn't real. This is not how real scientists talk. This guy is deliberately denying all evidence the same way creationists look the other way, cover their ears and go "lalalala" every time they are presented with evidence for evolution. In my mind it isn't any different.
Labels: Denialism, Global Warming
0 Comments - Post/view commentsFriday, February 15, 2008 . 2/15/2008
I am really tired right now so this post probably won't make too much sense, but I'm having a thought and if I don't type or write it down I'll keep thinking about it and won't be able to sleep until I do.This whole global warming thing reminds me of the evolution controversy. Many people in America don't think evolution is real/say that it is "only a theory" or that it has lots of gaps in it. AGW deniers likewise think there isn't sufficient evidence for it or that scientists are still debating on whether or not it's real when in fact that isn't the case at all. I think it's pathetic that in a country where science has done so much for us, its citizens are still way behind in knowing what actual science is.
Labels: Global Warming, Personal
0 Comments - Post/view commentsThursday, February 14, 2008 . 2/14/2008
It's really, really annoying talking to a person who denies [insert something scientifically proven here] no matter what evidence you put forward. Not like I haven't already said this a million times before, but in this case it's my dad with human-caused global warming. It's not like he denies global warming is happening, he says it is, but for some reason he still thinks scientists are payed to say it is human-caused. Now I'm not saying I'm smarter than him because in all likelihood I'm not, but when it comes to this I think a lot of people can be fooled by articles like say, on the internet that appear to be legit and scientifically based when in fact they're not. But the thing is he has access to evidence that it's human caused, and to articles that debunk the pseudoscientists. I've showed him one of these but all he said was "well people can say whatever stuff they want about other people". Nice reasoning skills, dad. To be fair though, he was in a hurry to be somewhere so only skimmed it but refused to actually read it later when I asked if he'd like to.One thing I wanted to bring up here is that he goes on some forum, and recently he posted something like "my daughter gave me this link, what do you guys think of it?" (it was a link directing to questions and common myths about global warming, with evidence it is human caused). One of his online friends, I guess you could say, replied with nothing but insults directed towards the scientists and said something along the lines of "ROTFL, they have to put things point by point now, that just shows how desperate these people are". The first thing that comes to my mind is, well duh. If someone thick-skulled like yourself still doesn't see that human caused global warming is a non-disputed scientific fact, then that is exactly what you need: a point-by-point education on it. I also remember that in his post he asked "since when is it 'unscientific' to be skeptic on something?" Dude, the purpose of skepticism is to question things that have no evidence (that you know of). You are obviously on the internet, a place where you can find tons of evidence for the current global warming, and calling yourself "skeptic" is a cop-out. It is denial, pure and simple.
I'd also like to point out that no one on that whole global warming thread, save for maybe one person, disagrees with each other so I'm guessing all they do is sit around giving each other asspats while they make fun of "those silly scientists that don't know anything".
Despite all this I still love my dad, don't get me wrong. He's just kinda annoying to me sometimes.
Labels: Denialism, Global Warming, Personal
0 Comments - Post/view commentsTuesday, January 29, 2008 . 1/29/2008
For some bizarre reason my dad thinks scientists and in particular, climatologists, have an agenda. He says that the government or whatever pays them to say something, like for example, humans are the cause of the current global warming. Like I've said so many other times in this blog, for someone who claims he knows how the scientific method works, it is painfully obvious that he doesn't. Or maybe he thinks they are just guidelines, who the hell knows. He also says that lots of scientists disagree with the human-caused global warming thing and I keep telling him, if they presented sufficient evidence that it is natural, it would be a breakthrough and distribution of Nobel Prizes would be in order. So far however, that hasn't been the case. Science is about finding things out, it is a process. A scientist may not like what he discovers but that doesn't matter; what does is the evidence.Labels: Denialism, Global Warming, Rants, science
0 Comments - Post/view commentsTuesday, December 04, 2007 . 12/04/2007
I am getting increasingly frustrated with my dad and other people who are gullible. A few days ago, I've noticed my dad got fluorescent light bulbs for the bathroom. I asked him if he finally figured out global warming was real, and he said that global warming was real but "it's not man-made". He kept trying to bring the Ice Age thing up, and at that point I just gave up. If global warming is natural, then how the hell does he think fluorescent bulbs are going to help reduce it in any way in the first place? Wouldn't the warming just go down by itself? Besides bringing up the Ice Age as if I was stupid, he also said that "not all scientists are in it for evidence, but for money". Uh, right.. so there is this huge conspiracy where most scientists say that man-made global warming is occurring but they're saying it for the money? What the fuck? He also stated that "the majority doesn't always mean it's right." I told my dad that if he thinks he is smarter than these scientists then he should just write a peer reviewed report, and then he'd get payed loads and maybe even win the Nobel Prize or something. He said that people already have tried. Just laughable.. of course people have tried proving that global warming isn't caused by humans, but if they were right, articles would be everywhere on it. It would be headline news. But it isn't. My dad isn't even a scientist (but claims to know how the scientific method works when he obviously doesn't), doesn't even do any tests himself. All he does is read articles by quack "scientists" and takes them at face value. And he has the nerve to tell me to not believe everything I read?---------
I thought I'd clear up something to anyone who happens to read this.
It probably seems like I really, really hate my dad or am ungrateful, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I don't always engage him in arguments and when I do, it isn't to force him to believe (or not believe) in anything, as much as I'd like that. It's more like debate practice for me - practice in not losing my sanity in trying to talk reason with a theist (and he knows this).
Labels: Denialism, Global Warming, Personal, Rants
0 Comments - Post/view comments
