1039 CC-Denialism and the question of 'proof'
I get sucked into the discussion about CC-Denialism again and again by way of communicating with a CC-Denier, this time in response to my blog 1036 about the Michael Moore documentary (more). The bottom line of the response was:
The bottom line is there is no evidence of man made global warming. The science proves this. Claims of the “hottest year on record” is false. Historical Temp records have been altered to make this claim.
All predictions of man made global warming have been proven wrong - the Pacific islands are not sinking, there are not more hurricanes/cyclones and they are not more intense, drought is not caused by CO2 ... it has all been completely disproven.
Predictions of no snow, arctic ice melting, disappearance of polar bears and no water accumulation in dams (al la Flannery) have all been proven wrong.
In short … the theory has been disproved.
I am amazed this theory is still promoted but it may take a generation to undue the media brainwashing and educational bias imposed on children. Population control is important.
Myself, I can't be bothered with the question whether climate change (CC) is real or not. I know it is ... 97% of climate scientists say so, that's good enough for me. What interests me is the psychology behind CC-Denialism ... that fascinates me. And I am fully aware for a CC denialist to change their mind would be a massive "Road to Damascus" event, probably very painful ... and probably also unlikely.
For insight into the psychology of CC-Denialism go to my blogs:
1000 The Psychology of Climate Change Denialism
1038 Don't even think about it
But, nevertheless, I put the case out to anyone and everyone who argues - as for instance
Malcolm Roberts did on Q&A in 2016 - that the evidence for climate change either doesn't exist - The bottom line is there is no evidence of man made global warming - or is falsified (by NASA no less) - Historical Temp records have been altered to make this claim - that you must provide contrasting facts. Now, professor Brian Cox threw the evidence at Roberts ... but it would not have made a difference, because the man will simply - even as he looks at the evidence - refute it ... he will come up with scurrilous interpretations of the evidence, and produce 'alternative' facts.
Mr. Roberts, if you can't see empirical evidence, you're just not looking, or you're looking in the wrong places; which most likely is true for anybody who denies CC.
"Denial never dies; it just goes quiet and waits." (The Guardian)
I have my theory on Malcolm Roberts.
You see, he is an intelligent man, and
I am convinced he knows he is wrong;
just like the flat-earthers, who defend
their stance because of the argument;
they surreptitiously wallow in notoriety.
The man must not be taken seriously;
he is a joke, to be treated accordingly.
Coming to think of it - I believe this is
the case with all (intelligent) Climate
Change denialists ... caught between
forever listening to conservative com-
mentators and their own investments
in the fossil fuel industry, they simply
refuse to countenance reality & facts.
They're stuck in a circle of denialism.
So this is my proposition: I ask for scientific evidence, from climate scientists ... not scientists working in unrelated fields ...
From The Logic of Science blog, which is about the contradiction inherent in a particular logical fallacy:
Namely the argument that - particularly in the context of Climate Change - implicitly assumes someone must be correct just because they are a scientist; however, in so doing, it also implicitly assumes that thousands of other scientists are wrong despite the fact that they are scientists. Do you see the inherent problem here? It posits that having the support of a scientist is sufficient evidence that a position is correct, while simultaneously ignoring a much larger group of scientists that do not support the positions. This is why it is a special case of cherry-picking. This fallacy cherry-picks which people to trust based entirely on personal biases, ideology and ignorance of facts rather than actual expertise.
... that make a convincing case against climate change. I will publish that evidence here on my blog.
The point though is, that evidence will be weighed against the scientific consensus (of about 97 percent of climate scientists) - as Brian Cox points out - that climate change is real ... and it impacts the world greatly already now.
To drive that point home, there is this tv docu "The Age of Consequences" ... where a soldier says:
"If I have intelligence of a 99 % probability that on the
road ahead is a road-side bomb - will I take my chance
with the 1 percent who don't believe the threat is real?"