Environment & Energy

UtahJosh

(131 posts) Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:58 AM Mar 2016

A 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.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A discussion with a right wing climate denier (Original Post) UtahJosh Mar 2016 OP

Your "Friend" is suffering from conformation bias GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #1

Josh, just google Duppers Mar 2016 #2

Yeah his friend just seems like a standard idiot rightwing Warren Stupidity Mar 2016 #3

This site looks at all denier arguments pscot Mar 2016 #4

You also may find these link useful in answering Duppers Mar 2016 #5

You will never persuade your friend about something as complex as AGW. kristopher Mar 2016 #6

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)

1. Your "Friend" is suffering from conformation bias

Reply to UtahJosh (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:57 AM

Mar 2016

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

(28,117 posts)

2. Josh, just google

Reply to UtahJosh (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:36 AM

Mar 2016

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)

3. Yeah his friend just seems like a standard idiot rightwing

Reply to Duppers (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:11 AM

Mar 2016

troll. These are not new or even remotely clever arguments.

pscot

(21,024 posts)

4. This site looks at all denier arguments

Reply to UtahJosh (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:33 AM

Mar 2016

and debunks them one at a time.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Duppers

(28,117 posts)

5. You also may find these link useful in answering

Reply to UtahJosh (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:57 PM

Mar 2016

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)

6. You will never persuade your friend about something as complex as AGW.

Reply to UtahJosh (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:39 PM

Mar 2016

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.

Reply to this discussion