Course on Denial 101x
Feb 10, 2015 09:17:57 #
http://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VNoQXcp0zb2
"Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
About this Course:
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
We will look at the most common climate myths from global warming stopped in 1998 to global warming is caused by the sun to climate impacts are nothing to worry about.
Well find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. Youll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
With every myth we debunk, youll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, youll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
This isnt just a climate MOOC; its a MOOC about how people think about climate change."
Offered by the University of Queensland (so it in Australian).
And you can audit for free!
"Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
About this Course:
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
We will look at the most common climate myths from global warming stopped in 1998 to global warming is caused by the sun to climate impacts are nothing to worry about.
Well find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. Youll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
With every myth we debunk, youll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, youll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
This isnt just a climate MOOC; its a MOOC about how people think about climate change."
Offered by the University of Queensland (so it in Australian).
And you can audit for free!
Feb 10, 2015 09:30:41 #
Scoutman wrote:
Some rebuttal for your reading enjoyment can be found at...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever
Copied from the Drudge Report, (so... who knows)
Feb 10, 2015 09:36:44 #
Scoutman wrote:
A rebuttal for your reading enjoyment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
It's from the Drudge Report site (it in Australian, too)
Feb 10, 2015 10:09:37 #
Funny and true:
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/what-does-a-statistically-representative-climate-change-debate-look-like
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/what-does-a-statistically-representative-climate-change-debate-look-like
Feb 10, 2015 11:38:59 #
What the scientific community broadly believes:
1). Climate change is real.
2}. Children should be vaccinated.
3). Genetically altered foods are safe.
1). Climate change is real.
2}. Children should be vaccinated.
3). Genetically altered foods are safe.
Feb 10, 2015 11:46:43 #
[quote=magicray]What the scientific community broadly believes:
1). Climate change is real.
2}. Children should be vaccinated.
3). Genetically altered foods are safe
Broadly believes? What does that mean? You cannot connect the phrase "broadly believes" with "scientific" ... they are mutually exclusive. Words mean things.
1). Climate change is real.
2}. Children should be vaccinated.
3). Genetically altered foods are safe
Broadly believes? What does that mean? You cannot connect the phrase "broadly believes" with "scientific" ... they are mutually exclusive. Words mean things.
Feb 10, 2015 12:12:00 #
[quote=Day.Old.Pizza]
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists.
Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarized in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming.
These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
Benefits and costs of climate change for human society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances ( flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers ( land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.
magicray wrote:
Broadly = mainly, predominantly.What the scientific community broadly believes:
1). Climate change is real.
2}. Children should be vaccinated.
3). Genetically altered foods are safe
Broadly believes? What does that mean? You cannot connect the phrase "broadly believes" with "scientific" ... they are mutually exclusive. Words mean things.
1). Climate change is real.
2}. Children should be vaccinated.
3). Genetically altered foods are safe
Broadly believes? What does that mean? You cannot connect the phrase "broadly believes" with "scientific" ... they are mutually exclusive. Words mean things.
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists.
Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarized in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming.
These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
Benefits and costs of climate change for human society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances ( flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers ( land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.
Feb 10, 2015 14:19:05 #
magicray wrote:
Broadly = mainly, predominantly. br br The scien... (show quote)
Although it has been a long, long time since I attended school, I seem to remember that for something to be scientifically proven to occur, anyone testing the premise that Global Warming is occurring would get the same answer...that it is, in fact, getting warmer. To say scientists "broadly" agree indicates to me that not everyone testing the premise is coming to that conclusion. Therefore, for now, it is not "scientifically" proven,but only a commonly held belief
Feb 10, 2015 16:59:31 #
Day.Old.Pizza wrote:
Although it has been a long, long time since I attended school, I seem to remember that for something to be scientifically proven to occur, anyone testing the premise that Global Warming is occurring would get the same answer...that it is, in fact, getting warmer. To say scientists "broadly" agree indicates to me that not everyone testing the premise is coming to that conclusion. Therefore, for now, it is not "scientifically" proven,but only a commonly held belief
Indeed, it has been a very long time, and some ideas seem to have been confused in the intervening time. The process of science does not prove anything. Rather, it proposes hypotheses that are to be disproven. After sufficient failures to disprove a hypothesis the consensus will be that it is now a theory, which is a strong statement that the data are consistent with a particular interpretation. Still not, nor ever, proven.
Feb 10, 2015 18:13:16 #
OldDoc wrote:
Indeed, it has been a very long time, and some ideas seem to have been confused in the intervening time. The process of science does not prove anything. Rather, it proposes hypotheses that are to be disproven. After sufficient failures to disprove a hypothesis the consensus will be that it is now a theory, which is a strong statement that the data are consistent with a particular interpretation. Still not, nor ever, proven.
It has been awhile. I'll concede to you on your definition. I think I confused a Law with a Theory. Still, I believe that a majority of scientists espousing a position on something doesn't make it so. Too may qualified people on both sides of the fence to say it's positively one way or the other. The recent discovery of fudging the temperatures isn't going to help the cause.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.