When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[OrganicOzarks]

When we do not completly understand a subject the "evidence" or conclusion of an experiment is "interpreted". A lot of results are interpreted. No conclusive answer, but we think we know. Science is not always cut and dry. Math is. Gravity is still just a theory. We can't prove it though. We all know it's there though. No denying that. I read through a lot of this, and it seems as though you started this thread to get into a fight with people. If I deny the story told to me by the government about 911 does that make me an idiot? No actually it shows that I have a logily thinking brain, and can input data and extract a conclusion. It is no different than a science experiment. How come the same experiment can be done by multiple people and they get different results? Science is just as relative as everything else on this planet. the one thing I have learned since I have been on this planet is that everything from day one is "relative". Nothing is cut and dry. We use to think there is one universe. Now it is thought that there are infinite universes. My brain hurts when I think about that. It just makes me want to sit in the corner because really we as humans are very insignificant. We are more of a parasite for the earth than anything. Black and white in science is not as conclusive as we thought it was. H3ad your threads get fucking deep as shit. There is no denying that.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Global warming is verifiable.

There is definite evidence that man is the cause not natural cycles.

 

[dagnabit]

and new words never get coined and added to the dictionary...




lmao
I've only posted that it is a newly coined word defining a fairly recent phenomenon.



you seem to have problems getting your mind wrapped around concepts.

no i understand the concept.
i just disagree that it is only used by the correct to describe the incorrect.

you seem to have problems getting your mind wrapped around the fact that most things are multifaceted and that your interpretation of a segment of data is not the only one. i just dont live in your this or that black and white world. i dont live in a world where we take score in a discourse.
but when ego is involved i guess you have to have the "upper hand" LOL

in short..
close minded
myopic
narcissistic

 

[OrganicOzarks]

So I was reading the other day, and I was reading about c02. Plants on the earth have adapted to using a far less amount of c02 than they use to use. they have adapted to less c02. Before there was a trillion people before there were even cave men there was more c02 in the air. This was a plant book by the way. So no people. More c02. Now a shit load of people polluting, and less c02. I thought it interesting. I do not take stance on global warming. However I will say that we can all agree that pollution is bad, and we need to cut it down as much as possible. Why does everyone get into it like dems and repubs? Why can't we all just put that same energy into talking pollution reduction. Humans like to be right to much. We love cut and dry. It's all relative though. The sooner we quite bickering about being right and wrong the more time we can spend cutting down pollution. That you can not deny.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Global warming is verifiable.

There is definite evidence that man is the cause not natural cycles.

Does this information fit into your definition of Denialism?

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.

Fact:
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.

...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Does this information fit into your definition of Denialism?

no. it was information which needed researching, that a reporter sensationalized with a misleading headline.
It was scientifically refuted a couple of years ago.

Find the data gathered and discussed by both sides here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm

Anyone still using it as evidence after reading the associated facts might be engaging in denialism.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

no. it was information which needed researching, that a reporter sensationalized with a misleading headline.
It was scientifically refuted a couple of years ago.

Find the data gathered and discussed by both sides here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm

Anyone still using it as evidence after reading the associated facts might be engaging in denialism.

How about this info? Denialism or...?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

How about this info? Denialism or...?

Another example of a correlation which needed more study.

you're gonna make me play scientific whack a mole?
cool.

but....
All of the pertinent data, and discussion about that data can be found at the website I linked you to.

I'll do this one for you, but you really should explore all of their compiled data, before you bring up anything else which can be quickly addressed by reading one of their discussions.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Wha...-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-solar-cycle-24-begun.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-term-solar-trend.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


Then once you're done with those
almost every one of your potential questions is answered here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


For something to become denialism, one must be intentionally ignoring empirically verifiable evidence.


SKEPTICISM is good for science and is an integral part of the scientific process. I have loads of respect for genuine skeptics... but genuine skeptics are willing to learn, and don't keep using refuted conclusions to deny the verifiable like a denilaist does.

Once upon a time I was very skeptical of AGW,
but by digging deeper into both sides evidence
I have become virtually convinced that AGW is the case.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Perhaps you should move over to the climate change thread and read it... then there would be less re-hashing of old news, and this thread won't devolve into one small aspect of the broader topic.

 

[White-rhino]

Amusing little ditty. Wouldn't be funny if it wasn't spot on.

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce 'panic for profit.' also known as "weather".

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way. Sometimes awarded to moslem terrorists.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "DENIER," above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "DATA" by "DENIERS." Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Nice comic relief, WhiteR... and a good example of the distorted definitions obstructionists and undereducated individuals push.


propaganda like that only works on the weak minded, so I expect the weak minded will cheer you on...

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Another example of a correlation which needed more study.

you're gonna make me play scientific whack a mole?
cool.

but....
All of the pertinent data, and discussion about that data can be found at the website I linked you to.

I'll do this one for you, but you really should explore all of their compiled data, before you bring up anything else which can be quickly addressed by reading one of their discussions.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Wha...-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-solar-cycle-24-begun.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-term-solar-trend.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


Then once you're done with those
almost every one of your potential questions is answered here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


For something to become denialism, one must be intentionally ignoring empirically verifiable evidence.


SKEPTICISM is good for science and is an integral part of the scientific process. I have loads of respect for genuine skeptics... but genuine skeptics are willing to learn, and don't keep using refuted conclusions to deny the verifiable like a denilaist does.

Once upon a time I was very skeptical of AGW,
but by digging deeper into both sides evidence
I have become virtually convinced that AGW is the case.

Are you giving me the runaround? That is a lot to read. What do you think of the sunspot data based on your current understanding - in your own words?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Deniers merely deny... all I am asking if for people to bother REFUTING claims instead of merely denying them...

denialists are unable to refute the things they deny.

If you can actually refute that which you deny, then you are not a denialist.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Are you giving me the runaround? That is a lot to read. What do you think of the sunspot data based on your current understanding - in your own words?

There is a lot of info to factor in. most of the people who do not believe in AGW
only factor in the tiny bit of data they like or the media pre-digests for them
and ignore the rest.
Good to know you are unwilling to dig for the truth, though.


Sunspots are not the cause of global warming.
You can research and find out why, or remain uninformed.
I pointed you to the meal, but you're not getting spoon fed.

 

[dagnabit]

For something to become denialism, one must be intentionally ignoring empirically verifiable evidence.

according to whom?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

according to whom?

the correct usage of the word by the people who coined it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I can deny that the sky is made of shit, and empirically validate that denial, which raises it beyond mere denial and into refutation. I can deny that the sky looks blue to everyone that has properly functioning eyes, and I am then in denial. I can convince a bunch of people who walk around hating blue skies that the blue is a hoax, and if they buy into it and refuse to look at the blue sky, then we are denialists. ("I saw a white cloud one day, and a grey one another day, so the 'blue skiers' must all be zelot cultists... No, I'm not going out today and look up, you're a zealot, you're obviously lying")

Denial ≠ denialism... Maybe it's the ism part that is still confusing you.

all denial is not denialism.

You do understand that placing words next to each other can modify the definition of a word, right? You get how suffixes work?

scientific |ˌsīənˈtifik|
adjective
based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

denial |diˈnīəl|
noun
the action of declaring something to be untrue.

ism |ˈizəm|
noun informal
a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy.

Therefore

denialism |diˈnīəlˈizəm|
noun informal
a distinctive practice of systematically declaring something to be untrue.

And

scientific denialism |ˌsīənˈtifik diˈnīəlˈizəm|
noun informal
a distinctive practice of systematically declaring some empirically verifiable things discovered using the methods and principles of science to be untrue and science in general to be unreliable.

 

[dagnabit]

the correct usage of the word by the people who coined it.

according to Hoofnagle no not the ONLY correct usage..

if you cant see that "denialisim" is just a rhetorical tool used to erect barriers to debate regardless of the facts well i suggest you study denialisim.

 

[dagnabit]

I can deny that the sky is made of shit, and empirically validate that denial, which raises it beyond mere denial and into refutation.

Denial ≠ denialism... Maybe it's the ism part that is still confusing you.

all denial is not denialism.

You do understand that placing words next to each other can modify the definition of a word, right? You get how suffixes work?









Therefore





And

umm YOU made that drivel up to suit your needs..

the person who coined the phrase defines it differently...

nice try though....