For the Record

They probably don't think of Astronomy as a 'science'. If they deny this, it's because they're anti-women.

This is from real scientists (astronomers) from the UK. - Northumbria University, in Newcastle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Wow, they must really have a low appreciation of geology then...... ;-)

Geology? The Kim Kardashian of the sciences?

Never underestimate the powers of geologists.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b7obd_7gXB8

I think the TV program "Big Bang Theory" said it best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYMFHON8LFw

:P

(not a personal opinion however)

Oh, I don't know about belittling, I think most of it after the first dozen or so scams, one (me at least) developes a jaundiced eye toward the crises du jour. I've lived through running out petroleum, imminent Ice Age, spotted owls, running out of petroleum, ozone holes, DDT, acid rain, running out of petroleum, too many people, food scares, running out of copper, methane nodules in the Pacific, did I mention running out of petroleum? etc.

Here is something you can cogitate on while awaiting the fall classes. "Their measurement had been sheer luck, or perhaps a case of knowing the result they wanted to get-not an uncommon occurrence in science". Stephen Hawking "A Brief History of Time".

For you reading pleasure I suggest Chapter 5 of "SuperFreakonomics". It deals with AGW and is authored by the fellow who helped A Gore with his film, and shared in the Nobel Prize.

Ironically, the Stephen Hawking quote deals with the "settled science" of gravity. If Dr Hawking calls into question his fellow scientists and their ethics, who am I to argue with him?

For those of us who are literal minded, what does a study of the denial of climate change mean?

Is the study denying climate change, or advocating it?

To me it sounds like it should be neither advocating or denying the existence of climate change itself. It sounds like it should be about the mechanisms and methods that individuals use to actively deny proof claims respected statements of the existence and/or consequences of global warming.

Well, "a study of the denial of climate change" does not sound like an unbiased study of the methods employed.

And, "the feeling they all emit is one of superiority towards anyone who isn't in their club. they can be blatantly condescending and belittling" is telling, as well.

To me, this sounds more like a climate change predictors bashing course.

I wonder if the participants understand the difference between climate change and "man made" global warning? Neither happen quickly.

Speaking of man made climate change, the Aral Sea is still a mess that humanity created. I'd be curious if the class discusses how this is denied.

And, closer to home, the Salton Sea?

You should really look in your own backyard before casting aspersions on Russia. When was the last clam dug from Great South Bay? Or how 'bout the oysters in Oyster Bay. Has Roslyn Harbor repaired their treatment plant so that sewerage isn't dumped into the Sound? How long ago was it that Asharoken had to close its beaches?

We have been. Clams are taken from Great South Bay now. The ban in 2012 on Oyster Bay oysters has been lifted in September 2012. I do not know if either shellfish crops are again temporarily banned. I do know that the rampant unlicensed shellfish harvesting from four decades ago are long gone.

I think that the Roslyn Harbor sewage treatment plants have been re-engineered to cope with higher rain run off. IMHO these systems need to be replaced instead of getting another bandaid repair. That will cost more taxpayer money from a virtually bankrupt government.

I have no idea when was the last closing of Asharoken beaches. The fact that the news reports when these beaches close, implies that most of the time they do reopen.

The Aral Sea restoration project is making some headway, too. As the article from three years ago states, the sea is now up to 10% of the lakes former size.

I never denied any of these. Did you?

No never. We have made great headway from Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie in the late '60's. There is still a great deal to do, but in economic terms it is mostly on the "micro" individual level. It is criminal the way the people treat our environment in the Caribbean. Not just here in PR, the USVI is horrible as are DR. I haven't been to Cubar other than GITMO I can't say how they are, but if Miami is any indication it is trashed. I remember the Fire Island beaches before Giuliani ended NYC offshore sewage dumping, littered with needles tampon applicators etc, and that was dumped approx 180 miles NE of the Verrazonno Br. They had cleared by the 2003 or so. At that point, I had moved east and they were pretty much litter free.

I haven't been back since 2011, but I log in occasionally to TOPIX and look at the local scene(s).

180 miles North East of the Verazano straights is inland of Boston and close to the borders of Maine and New Hampshire. I'm certain you meant South East. I personally suspect most of the infamous medical waste hazards washing up on a shore line of that era were more likely accidental spillage from barge based water transporting of garbage than intentional dumping at sea. That's not an excuse but a more likely "faux pas" of the pathetic garbage management of the era. (I am stretching decorum and politeness nearly to the breaking point here.)

My guess is they want to discredit climate change deniers (which is itself a loaded term bracketing them with flat-earthers). So they're convinced global warming (man-made or not) is real.

But I could be wrong.

Then a good course on research technics should do it.

I wonder if the participants understand the difference between climate change and "man made" global warning? Neither happen quickly.

Or, happen at all, especially in regard to "man-made" climate change.

The "study of the denial of climate change" were Freski's words, as well as "the feeling they all emit is one of superiority towards anyone who isn't in their club. they can be blatantly condescending and belittling" statement.

You've made some outrageous statements in the past.

This is also one:

"Or, happen at all?"

Are you suggesting that the earth has never experienced warming and cooling cycles, speaking strictly of known historical data and not some work of fiction?

No one denies that there are trends of temperature differential during the time of recorded history. I fully concur that there is variation in temps as different natural cycles occur.

The thing that most people disagree with is that man is the cause. We, mankind, isn't the cause of temperature variation! We may influence local environment with pollution, etc., but we don't influence Natural Law. We, mankind, isn't that significant in the Universe to make worldwide changes.

You seem to.

"I wonder if the participants understand the difference between climate change and "man made" global warning? Neither happen quickly.

Or, happen at all,"

We're back to discussing weather phenomena now. You're peeing in my boot and telling me it's raining.

You have absolutely NO proof that, "We, mankind, isn't the cause of temperature variation".

You see, the term temperature variation is so nebulous as to mean anything.

And I'm not talking about clouds here.

You say, "we don't influence Natural Law". I say we can, we have and we do.

We'll have to debate the meaning of Natural Law, and whose laws you mean before that discussion takes place. You, I believe, mean words in the book of fiction you claim as the end all, do all of life.

Other, more recent, publications may differ.

I have the solution

Nope. No need for that.

I'm not "discussing" politics with kramarat, may his tortured soul rest in the great OT hell of CR4. His ghost still haunts Facebook.

There is no scientific evidence that we influence the environment of the Universe.

Is it "global warming" or "global cooling" or "climate change"? Temperatures change according to patterns that man has no control over, or impact on. That has happened for all of recorded history, even before evil man was around with burning oil products and internal combustion engines.

What Natural Laws of does man influence, that are based upon clear scientific data and not interpreted to mean something they're not? Natural Laws/Laws of Nature being gravity, Thermodynamics, orbits, ocean tides, math, physics, etc.

1. An urban heat island (UHI) is a city or metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities.

That is correct but that is local, not universal or even impacting very far away from that local area. That is simply because of passive heat from concrete, asphalt, buildings, heat generated by equipment, etc.

There is impact on local environments by pollution in the air or water but those things don't change or impact the normal patterns of weather.

The Earth is local. Pluto can be considered as local. Many years ago Archimedes said (in ancient Greek) Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Archimedes

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/archimedes101761.html#OS8RMQh3sMW3jMPf.99

Then Sir Isaac made his observation that he called the third law of motion that shows one person must be able to change the world.

You, sir, are not a skeptic but a denier. You refuse to accept this idea. You are entitled to your opinion. You have also provided an excellent example of a mind closed to this train of thought.

rather than being a jerk and labeling this guy with a word that carries such a negative connotation why not let it rest with a difference of opinion?

What negative connotation? I just pointed out that on the subject of climate change this is a clear example of denial. The denial is so rampant that hyperbolic words are being chosen that render the intended point meaningless.

This entire thread that you started is about your class on the deniers of climate change not the existence of climate change. You must be doing really well in this class on deniers.

I find it odd that you now consider this term carries a negative connotation. Denial has some useful aspects that your class should cover. Virtually nothing is purely evil or good. People do often over use denial. This can lead to other complications but I digress far too much here.

Also a great place to take your glider.

"the environment of the Universe."

We seem to have significantly broadened the scope of the discussion.

Now, you want to invoke scientific data?

I have other laws to violate, at the moment.

More later.

Here we now have a clear denier. "... we don't influence Natural Law. We, mankind, isn't that significant in the Universe to make worldwide changes." This is clearly denying the possibility we can influence a Natural Law [whatever that is] or that we can recognize our influence. In contrast a skeptic will want to find a way to test a conjecture and then put their belief in the result of that test.

I may have been misunderstood. (whats new) although I clown around quite a bit I actually on occasion delve really deep into subjects that interest me. in looking to further my knowledge on the entire warming topic I came across the class I mentioned. my initial thought was, "they're calling this a science"???? so being a subjective student as well as a comedian I signed up to get more material for my jokes. some of these elitist types are really out there.I'm still floored to think one can actually accrue credits for watching this brand of brainwashing. the way they twist data to fit their arguments is intriguing. there is little science offered but endless rationalizing as to why the overwhelming body of evidence they buy into isn't more widely accepted. any good scientist welcomes new data from all sources when looking to understand our little world.

when challenged with logic and fact most of these folks quickly fold their tents and storm off.Don't bother asking them why ice melts in air temps above freezing, it's to hard of a question

The study of denial sounds like a psychology course.

Anyone who doesn't accept must be mentally flawed. USSR used that as a reason for putting folk in to asylums because only an insane person would criticise eutopia....

.....and Australians are wondering why they aren't as skilled as they used to be.

Pretty soon incurable denial of AGW will be classified as a disability....free meds, housing, taxis, and a pension.

This apparently very educated group could do with a bit of a scrute.

Why am I imagining this thread?

I don't believe you.

yes most of the lectures and interviews focus on why the "deniers" think as they do. many of these speakers cite science repeatedly but so far have yet to mention that things like several years of sat data conflicts with their bogus projections...maybe some of them will read the thread here on JPL and will adjust their willingness to listen to an occasional different point of view.

I think you should review the difference between denialism and skepticism. As the title of the class states, this class is about denialists ignoring scientific presentations not how skeptics protect the validity of scientific presentations.

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

All we have to do is wait 500 years, then we'll all know the answer.

actually I think its an 8 week course

Thanks for the course fees Fredski.

Give the others enrollment details so that I can continue to collect!

I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find similar courses available your side of the Pacific also.

Please take into account that every AGW computer scenario is based on AlGorithms. Notwithstanding the fact, he is the self proclaimed father of the internet.