Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumA discussion with a right wing climate denier
I'm wondering if I could get some info here on a few issues that a climate denier friend of mine has been trying to put forth which seem ridiculous to me, but I don't have the expertise to refute (I'd be interested in anyone pointing me to any websites and/or scientific papers that might help).
First off, he claimed that the thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding climate change were "pop science", amounting to a conspiracy of like-minded, politically influenced dittoheads out to fool us. He also called the 97% "mob science". He further claimed "whatever the majority agrees on must be the truth and whoever disagrees should be shunned and told to stop burying their heads in the sand, right? For every modern scientific "agreement" you can find an historical agreement to the contrary. Science is, especially these days, severely biased and in collusion with politics and government."
He further argued that peer review is unrelated to the scientific method (I have to admit I claimed that the peer review was *part* of the process using the scientific method, so I guess I gave the guy an opening in this case).
I'd like to see some info on the importance of the scientific method in reaching consensus on these matters, unless I'm wrong, in which case I'll concede the point (I'm certainly happy do so if I'm wrong or off-base on this).
Thanks in advance for any info/links/sources that might enlighten me on this issue, so that *maybe* I can enlighten my friend.
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)Conformation bias is a condition acquired from obtaining information from a limited number of sources which only agree with each other.
In other words; Your friend is ignorant.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)It doesn't take too long to find a pleathra of credible sources to refute your biased, ignorant friend.
Good luck.
Edited to include some links to start you off:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-sources-for-data-and-information-on-climate-change-AGW-Global-Warming
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)troll. These are not new or even remotely clever arguments.
pscot
(21,024 posts)and debunks them one at a time.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Duppers
(28,120 posts)your friend's charges against peer reviewed papers...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review.htm
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
Last one is pretty elementary. Yes, peer review is not part of the scientific method but the process is good at weeding out frauds. There are extemely few denier papers in legit journals and those are older, disproved ones.
(My hubs, not a climate scientist, has has a scientific paper in reviews for almost 6mos now. Many arguments with a particular reviewer ensued; however, just last week the journal decided to publish it. Hard science with data, equations of proof, and experiments is difficult to refute.)
Deniers are usually very emotionally tied to their opinions in the same way repubs and religious people are. Mostly, they are not swayed by facts.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)But there is a smaller piece of the carbon cycle's disturbance which I've had some luck with - ocean acidification.
It is an easier picture for someone to wrap their head around since nearly everyone is familiar with the way life is destroyed to keep a swimming pool clear.
It is also backed by measurements that are pretty straight-forward.
Start here and then cast a google net to find some sources that you think best match your friend's type of trusted sources.
https://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/ocean-acidification
If he/she finds ocean acidification plausible, it is a good first step towards tearing down the wall of certitude protecting the entire climate denial structure of belief.