Dr Richard Milne - Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial

Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, presents Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Richard Milne
• School of Biological Sciences
• Climate Change
• skepticism
• denial
• debate
• Our Changing World
• University of Edinburgh

[JonThm]

After Chernobyl nuclear power publicised the discredited idea of global warming, and attributed it to a biologically impossible rise of carbon dioxide in the air-ignoring the effect of photosynthesis. This fixes the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Extra carbon dioxide results in extra life on earth.

[U1T001]

@Mackberserk

RE: “humans must be destroying the planet” came BEFORE the actual observation was made

The observations were before the hypothesis. What actual observation do you need.

Write in Google 'CO2 map' & click [Images]

Write in Google 'Wildfire' → Images (you may skip the GSM ad there)

Write in Google 'Huge waves' → Images (pay attention these are not tsunamis)

Write in Google 'Extreme weather' → Images

Write in Google 'pollution' → Images

Write in Google 'oil spills' → Images

Click [More]

[JonThm]

Nuclear power started promoting the discredited science of global warming in 1986 after Chernobyl

[Richard482]

@JonThm "Global warming was fiction from nuclear power and there paid stooges" So did the nuclear industry invent a time machine and bribe every scientist who has studied this subject, beginning with Joseph Fourier back in 1824? :)

[mikesomething]

@Mackberserk yeah, and all the while he has pictures of the sneaky deniers in dark glasses showing them as intellectually dishonest whilst being so himself ...... why you want to defend this piss ?

[mikesomething]

@Mackberserk sounds pretty bogus to me, but he says a fair few things in this vid along those lines

yeah .... dont give me that crap, you are using fancy words to say sometimes its ok to strawman to get people to listen ...... not where im sitting it doesnt. it just adds to my doubt that this guy is giving it to us straight and makes me believe him all the less.

[Mackberserk]

They never even considered alternative hypothesis’ that were not of “man-made” origin, as a rational person might expect. Again, this is because these “scientists” were not practicing the scientific method – they were simply your typical nutty, hippy liberal who was infatuated with environment, got a Ph.D. in environmental science and then masqueraded as a scientist.

[Mackberserk]

They then started “observing” the temperature of the planet (step 1) and attempted to fit this observation to their hypothesis. This is exactly what you are NOT supposed to do in science – it is backwards of the scientific method. At first, they observed global cooling…but then, years later, they starting observing global warming. Regardless of the observation, the hypothesis discussed in the scientific literature was always the same…these temperature changes were man-made. Cont'

[Mackberserk]

The reason I say scientists in quotes is because all of the scientists who asked this question were of the same political party – liberal democrat – which might explain why they skipped the first step of the scientific method. Although deforestation, cancer-causing chemicals (e.g. DDT), and various forms of species extinction were favorite nuggets of these “scientists”. The one they liked best, of course, was the hypothesis (step 2) that humans were about to destroy the entire planet. Cont'

[Mackberserk]

In the case of global warming, the scientific method was not followed because step one was entirely skipped, and the hypothesis that “humans must be destroying the planet” came BEFORE the actual observation was made. For instance, scientists did not suddenly observe that the earth was warming up (step one) and then made a hypothesis as to why this could be (step 2). No, instead a group of “scientists” asked the question “Humans must be hurting the environment, but how?” Cont'