Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Separating Skepticism from Denial
Oct 24, 2011 by The University of Edinburgh http://youtube.com/user/EdinburghUniversityDr Richard […]
Date Posted:
January 26, 2014
Oct 24, 2011 by The University of Edinburgh http://youtube.com/user/EdinburghUniversity
Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, presents Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial.
1hr 20min Lecture. This talk is about the psychology behind Climate Science denial and skepticism. It covers:
- The science of Climate Change – Could we be wrong?
- The claims of ‘skeptics’ – Do they stand up to scrutiny?
- Making sense of the debate – The crucial distinctions
- Understanding scientists – Consensus and the mavericks
- Understanding Denial – Why are some people immune to evidence?
About the Author: Santimvah
Where are my science geeks? Check this guys out I think he’s my new hero.
Smart and funny.
Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh
http://youtu.be/gh9kDCuPuU8
That is exactly about I talking on daily basis on all of appropriate events
. We do not need politicians. We need smart people working for better live
on the Earth. For everyone .
A nice summary of the very often disingenuous tricks and claims of climate
change denialists.
Very interesting (and relevant) talk on the difference between genuine
skepticism and denialism in the context of Global Warming.
Check out this video on YouTube:
didn’t you watch this video? it talked about cherry picking data and that
the minimum sample size for climate today should be 30years. so even if the
earth was cooling for last 17 years (which it isnt, as we’ve had 12 of the
hottest years on record in that time), you need to look at what’s been
happening for 17 years before that as well.
they do know what caused ice ages. dr milne mentioned it briefly in this
talk. it’s usually caused by osilations in earth orbit and tilt. you can
investigate that further, as it wasn’t the main topic of this talk. i live
in australia and i’d like to know what this billion dollar industy is that
you talk about. i’d like a piece of that. we are suffering already from
global warming. my dad is a research scientist with tuna and has been aware
of this problem since the 70s.
the antarctic is expanding
“should be” so it fits the alarmists’ claim, when in reality it should be
whatever period is relevant. I say that the period during which people are
being forced to pay tyrannical carbon taxes to prevent global warming is
the period during which there has been cooling. The last 17 years & it’s
accelerating. By 2020 we will see the Thames frozen over like it was last
time the Sun was this inactive. It’s still snowing here & it’s only 5 weeks
until English summer begins on 1st May.
XD LMFAO what are you? the replacement troll? How many more of you are
lined up for me to destroy?
A good scientist filters information before he starts to consider it. Or he
will never reach any conclusion, he’ll be collecting data for ever. The
analogies of detective-work, makes one ask the question: Has the crime ever
occurred? Who died? What happened? To arrest people before crimes are done
will reduce crime, but is not good detective work.
the earth warmer in it self. Space is the real cooler of the earth’s
atmosphere. The sun is the real heat source. No infrared rays from the sun,
and temp on earth will be -200C. CO2 or not.
You’re calling me an idiot? I want everyone to look at this chart and tell
me who is the idiot here? Me or HessenDragoonie? tinyurl (dot) com (slash)
cadldg2 = NO WARMING in over 16 years! (With all the fear they seem to have
about ‘catastrophic’ warming you’d think they’d be DELIGHTED AND RELIEVED
to know it isn’t true but no, out comes their TRUE COLOR – a political
agenda not science.)
On the contrary, they (we) often say, what it it was the other way around,
and the temperature dropped by 1-2 deg celsius? This would cause global
problems for us human beings. Food production would drop drastically, and
people would literary freeze to death. This can cause real problems for
hundreds of millions of people. And on he goes with a new syllogism about
Chernobyl and radiation. The same joke, as 3 times before, just with
different parameters. And then the film Armageddon (Willis) …
Did he really say “We in the UK have an impartial broadcaster, the BBC”.
BWAHHAHAAHAHDOHAHADHFOOKOFFHAHAPuke,,,,
And he actually tried to parse what he considered healthy skepticism and
deniers.
I mean chart
Theory is theory. And I will not shut up. Furthermore I do not need the
paper. You have to prove CO2 rises temperature. It does not. It keeps heat
from the sun longer in the atmosphere. That is what the teory of Climate
gases is all about. And time and time we have to say this: It is in the
LOWER TROPOSPHERE, not at seal-Level, the temp should be rising, if the
climate gases were responsible for warming. As You well know, this is
barely the case. Thus there is no real proof that a 33% rise…
That’s an easily refutable statement, there’re some animal species well
adapted to live under high concentrations of CO2, eg naked mole rats (or
any other burrowing animal for the matter). Plants also grow perfectly with
more CO2. I’m not sure if you’re aware that the increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration since the preindustrial period has been of about 40%. If you
are at home with your windows closed, the CO2 concentration inside will
increase several orders of magnitude over those levels.
BBC = Bad Bad sCience
1. please give me the precise reference for the article of this year April.
2. I find it quite amusing and sad at the same time that the editor of a
scientific journal actually resigned because he accepted a paper of Roy
Spencer (because his paper was so flawed!!)! Doesn’t shine a good light on
your source. Do you have another source showing that CO2 doesnt have a
warming effect?
For anybody interested in what “Global Warming” is (almost nobody knows
apparently) it’s an increase in the ocean heat content. Surface temperature
is a somewhat complex symptom that affects flora & fauna and it’s an
okayish proxy that depends on how the ocean is mixing, absorbing and
releasing its heat at any time, including any new heat, it isn’t “Global
Warming”. For example if “final” (exc. natural periodic vagaries) CO2x2
average surface temperature of +2.2 degrees C is required in order to
balance in&out TOA radiation (debate-neutral mid point of “best estimates”
skeptic Dr. Lindzen +1.6 & pro Dr. Hansen +2.8) then “Global Warming” will
stop when the oceans are ~+2.2 degrees C warmer than about 60 years ago.
It’ll take a few centuries to mix. Deepest 80% ocean is avge. ~4.4 and that
will rise to ~6.8 with my example.
You forgot to insert the words “of non-scientific nonsense” between “lot:
and “to”.
“and most of the world population.. “. Are you ready to have a vote on this? -Like right now?
Gov has experts who SHOULD handle such things based on evidence. That’s why
your water is clean. Voting is not relevant. But, you should know that
you’re in the minority, and that the minority is only as big as it is due
to MASSIVE propaganda.
Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, presents Critical Thinking
on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial.
Recorded on 11 October 2011.
No fingerprint found for CO2 warming troposphere, measurements have been
done with satellite. Warming at sea level and on ground based thermometers
are showing increase, but in this part of the atmosphere, water vapor is
the predominant cause of greenhouse warming. Temp ‘rise’ in lower
troposphere is in the order +/-0,1C from 1979-2013, confirmed with
satellite and weather balloons. Thermometer rise in same period: +0,4C,
caused by water vapor, clouds and sunshine.
The problem isn’t with the experts, it’s with the lobbyist groups. Very
similar lobbyist groups that propel nations into war under the guise of
being experts on the matter. You keep citing the number of experts as
evidence of the events themselves, which is an appeal to authority, is it
not? It is the merits of the arguments that are to be attacked.
BAH!
1. Who has anointed climate research experts to be experts on establishing
the proper judgement on how we should handle the issue of climate change at
the level of public policy? 2. Are you sure you are not overblowing the
area of what is the”97%” climatologists actually agree on? “97%” may well
agree to the mundane fact that climate change is primarily man made, but
does that make you entitled you rubber stamp this as “97%” of experts
endorsing the policies you are advocating?
We live in a meritocracy. That’s how it is in EVERY facet of life in
America. Should I decide what a corporation does, or should the CEO, a
person expert in such things? Maybe I can browse on the net for a few hours
and then be an expert LOL.
US is a constitutional republic, I’m not sure that you understand what
meritocracy really means. Whether the society should act regarding climate
change more in the direction of prevention or more in direction of
adaptation, whether radical actions should be taken now regardless of the
costs or more conservative approach is to be taken, finally does “we the
people” wish to make any scarifies in their living standard in order to
prevent climate change – are all matters of public debate …. “lol”
USE YOUR BRAIN
We have had some warming of about .75 C over the last century and a
half.CO2 is probably responsible for some of it.However the latest data
strongly suggests that the CO2 effect is quite small and will not lead to
dangerous warming.Even the last IPCC report[2013] concedes that Climate
Sensitivity is not as high as previously assumed.Your turn Giles!
Thank you!!! Great work.
I really wish this had never become politicized. I am an anthropogenic
climate catastrophe skeptic. I am unconvinced by the evidence I have been
given before, and came here to find better evidence. All I got from this
guy was how my skepticism was a masquerade for wanting to disbelieve. I aim
to learn the truth. And here, I found little.
Climate change is real, and man made. Therefore climate scientists can now
be laid off as their work is complete. We the public believe you, thank you
for your work and good luck in your new careers.
He lost me at what’s 463 * 132. Mathematics is not science, it’s a
language, and a tool of thought. The answer to that question is arrived
from complete logical deduction from a few axioms that are postulated
(without evidence) to be true at the core of number theory. There is no
need for consensus or empiricism among mathematicians, something is true if
the demonstration is correct.
This is completely and i do mean completely unlike the infinitely less
precise process by which the “scientific questions” in his later table get
their supposed factual answer. Clearly he wanted to make his muddled field
of biology look much more rigurous than it is.
Really good talk. Well in, Dr. Milne.
The rest of the world took also measures to deal with acid rain?
Fox Noise isn’t news. LOL! Most of us Americans make fun of Fox joke of a 24 hour GOP station. Even right wingers make fun of Fox. Its bunk news yellow journalism.
i wish you would all watch this
Fuck me!
The hippies have taken over the University here!
DiD this Hippie Goose really say; “We in the UK have an impartial
broadcaster, the BBC”?
I almost fell off my chair laughing.
I have always been skeptical of man made climate change, mainly due to the
politics surrounding it and the people who will look at a single sunny day
and say “Oh it’s global warming”.
In any case, I found this video to be excellent. His logic is solid and he
doesn’t strike me as an evil pseudo science conspirator. On account of this
video alone, I can honestly say my view has shifted closer to the alarmist
side.
“Gather only evidence against your chosen suspect” is bad science, but it’s
exactly what the IPCC has done and it’s exactly what all the focus on CO2
does. They were only looking at man-made CO2.
At least the Climate Denier caricature is getting PAID for his
misinformation. You lot do it for FREE :( #soldyourselfcheap
Denial isn’t a crime……yet.
As the costs rise, some are going to accountable.
Good conscience seeks to mitigate disaster. The preponderance of evidence was long since more than adequate and minimal predictions have been vastly exceeded.
There has been no global warming since 2001. Starting in 1987, the global
warming doomsday pushers have been threatening disaster. It has been 27
years and none of your dire predictions have happened.
Why is 32% yellow? 32% is the right answer. Yes, no, and it’s not happening
should all be red. You can’t prove something like this. It would be like
trying to predict the weather, err wait, that’s what you’re trying to do.
It’s good that you’re fighting for your job, I can respect that. However,
I’m not so sure we need more of you. You enjoy this life because mining and
oil industry allow it. What ticks me off is that you go on teaching this
stuff like the people you are teaching it to have a future in science when
you know they don’t. Your 95% confidence values have been wrong 16 times
for the last 16 years, that’s pretty bad science. What are the odds?
Consider the following: Big oil is setting on trillions of dollars of oil. They want to sell that oil. They are awash in money. They have a problem in that people don’t believe them when they try and attack the credibility of climate science (vested interest). They need a group to shill for them…
Religious fundamentalists feel that science is undermining their religious beliefs. They want to discredit science…
Wala – a marriage made in Heaven (actually, Hell would be a better description). The oil companies fund “conservative institutes” and all of a sudden religious organizations are opposing climate change. This doesn’t make sense because it is a destruction of God’s gift to humanity – but, what the hey, the money is there…
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people
come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an
award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to
others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace
Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who
are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab
University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the
Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to
invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC
Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third
(2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications
and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions
and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate
Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to
grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who
questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert
reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will
roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 –
Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems
Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former
member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And
they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking
about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United
States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on
May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in
2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed
UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly
found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be
useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo
Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a
skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural
circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment
of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the
way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African
Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC
co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed
publications.
man made climate change? c’ mon dude dont be silly lol
man made climate change is a scandalous hoax!!!
we go enter an iceage within few years now moron lol
cycle 25 will freeze us all up lol
by 2035 we will be covered by ice moron
Based on debates in comments I just realised something amazing.
Climate deniers are actually taking the side of big oil companies against the UN believing that oil is more trustworthy. O fuck. You guys just got a lot less funny. You hate the institution so
much that you think governments actually want to lose money in climate mitigation strategies, you think the scientists producing your cancer treatments want to lie to you… how do you justify following the wrong people so badly?
he is on a good grant
The presentation appears to be more a beating of a straw man than serious
evaluation of competing views. For example: I may be measuring length of
daytime for 30 days and determine on basis of fact that the daytime is
shortening and we will run out of daylight within time certain. Since we
use undisputed facts, the ‘deniers’ who say that it happens every fall are
against the facts.
Separately, using simple “who benefits” criteria for discrediting others
cuts both ways. The scientists that can alarm more people get more grants
for research.
Climate change is real. BUT hiv does not cause AIDS. Hundreds of absolute
top scientists have that opinion. Look up Peter Duesberg etc. Perhaps the
leading authority on retro viruses.
This is really brilliant.
This is really brilliant.
Making peer-reviewed lit freely available is easy: the author(s) just put a
downloadable version on their web page (if really necessary, one year after
the publication date).
Computer-scientists have always done so, and the issues are far less
pressing.
It’s indispensable not only for the general public but also for scientists
in poorer countries to remain up to date!
Don’t listen to anyone who drinks a beverage flavored with genetically
engineered e-coli feces!
The question that comes up at 1:07 is not answered any where near as well
as it could be. A great resource to answer more fully is Bill McKibben’s
essay ‘Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math’. Other than that, this is an
excellent presentation I look forward to sharing with all levels of people
educated or not on this hugely important matter.
I stopped this when the speaker made reference to the BBC being a impartial
public broadcaster. HA If the BBC is anything like the ABC in Australia
it would be full of inner suburban left leaning “progressives” with a ting
of “GREEN”. Goodbye!
Replace the lecturer’s (labels?) of climate deniers with creationists. I
see no difference.
1st lie: There are alternative energy sources to fossil fuel today. (They
just need funding.) FACT: There are no replacements for the scale of energy
from fossil fuels. Fuel sources do not need funding, only customers.
Saying there is a need for research funding simply obscures the fact that
wind, solar, bio etc. are marginal to below unity on energy return when all
inputs are considered. The only reasons they have ANY customers are niche
applications and government subsidies.
2nd lie: Opinion does not matter in science, only facts. Theory, which is
interpretation of facts, is nothing but opinion which often requires more
facts, better facts and better interpretation over time to be
constructive. Facts do not require a stampede to judgement.
3rd lie: Climategate revealed nothing important. Besides the back room talk
about how to push AGW, the most important revelation was that “correction
factors” inserted into the computer code resulted in the whole temperature
increase. This was after the hockey stick was debunked.
34:00 Global Warming by cleaning up soot and SO2 since 1980. Ooops. Let
that one slip in.
This guy knows nothing about Mars.
It’s no conspiracy. Virtually every scientist is a socialist, and they are
funded by socialist bureaucrats but the solution for global warming is only
coincidentally socialism.
You could start a forest fire with the straw men.
1:06:40 – Cannot quantify the effects or solutions as to degree or time.
Science makes predictions and on that he admits there is no consensus.
This is an admission that AGW is not science.
He goes on to claim that the best and worst models are “error bars”. You
can’t combine disparate models that way. Each model has its own range of
error which many of the other models are outside of. And their success at
predicting climate for the last 20 years has been abysmal.
The one thing Dr Richard Milne doesn’t bring to this presentation is
critical thinking. It’s simply steeped in proving a foregone conclusion.
His biases are running rampant around any critical thinking he might be
capable of.