you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

You commit some hefty errors here.

That aside, the people who don't believe in climate change

The issue in question with most skeptics is not climate change in general, but anthropogenic climate change in specific.

do most commonly deny the science

Why does disagreement equal denial? Why do you conflate these two things?

by saying that the scientific community are all committing academic fraud

Making scientific mistakes is not the same as deliberate fraud. Its not uncommon for scientists to make honest mistakes.

How do they approach refuting the scientific consensus in your experience?

They do so in many different ways. One of the more credible ways they criticise the scientific consensus is by taking aim at the ruling paradigm in climate science. Of course, to understand this critique, you need to be familiar with Thomas Kuhns book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The issue in question with most skeptics is not climate change in general, but anthropogenic climate change in specific.

Yes, that's the climate change that I'm talking about. Primarily the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The increase has been measured quite directly, and the greenhouse effect is well understood.

Why does disagreement equal denial? Why do you conflate these two things?

I don't think I'm conflating them.

Does the flat earth movement disagree that the moon is the other way up when viewed from the other hemisphere? Or do they deny it?

I would say deny is correct in that case. Similarly global warming deniers are disagreeing with the measured increase in atmospheric CO2. (Or that the optical properties of CO2 are not what we know them to be). It's a disagreement that doesn't have a rational basis.

Making scientific mistakes is not the same as deliberate fraud. Its not uncommon for scientists to make honest mistakes.

I agree with that. Depending on how you define "mistakes" they're probably more common than not making a mistake. About 80% of scientific papers on the cutting edge of a new field are refuted within 5 years. But they generally still contain information from which the knowledge of the field grows.

But we've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the fact that it will warm the planet has been known since the late 1800s. The cutting edge of climate science is far beyond "we're making it warmer" now.

One of the more credible ways they criticise the scientific consensus is by taking aim at the ruling paradigm in climate science.

What ruling paradigm is that?

Of course, to understand this critique, you need to be familiar with Thomas Kuhns book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Of course.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But there is a ruling paradigm called common sense. Not much to boast about it aside from two facts:

  • It usually ain't what you expect it to be
  • it is in fact easily derived but beats some of these "common knowledge" observations.

Hence it isn't a thing one can explain. Either you have the sense for it or you haven't.

It is like with these Jedi: Either you know the Force or you don't.

Since we now are in questions of religion i don't expect an answer but thats ok.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But there is a ruling paradigm called common sense.

Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. If you find that common sense rejects that, then your common sense is wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think you got me wrong...

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah sorry.

I'm starting to assume that everyone's a crackpot. To be fair in here it seems kind of likely.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Especially here it isn't. To be honest.