How to Debate a Science Denier

[Lummy]

Someone who uses science accurately to refute a Global Warming Cultists hysterical rantings.

They are using science to deny, you see.

Well then, those are science truthers.

Somebody needs to tell Chris and Dr Who as they both seem to have taken a header down the rabbit hole.

Interesting, since I haven't posted in this thread until now. Are you sure you have the right thread?

Well, and I wasn't talking to you but by indirect reference that is readily understood, Dr.

[FindersKeepers]

Galileo was the first to say the earth was round? Really?
That bad history aside, scientists accepted Galileo quickly, as his data was good. It was the politically-driven religious fanatics, such as found in the denier cult, who rejected Galileo.

He wasn't the first, Copernicus published a heliocentric theory and was shot down, too, by the "settled science" of the day. Why do you say the "deniers" (a term that indicates you're a teenager) are politically-driven religious fanatics? A good number of them are secular scientists. The problem with the climate change theory is folks like you that make it all seem like a scam because you can't get your point across without acting like an imbecile.

In science, the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data is the accepted theory. That's currently AGW theory. If you want to change that, present a better theory. Complaining that the accepted theory isn't 100.00000% proven isn't science, it's just complaining.

You messed that up a little bit and should have looked it up before you typed it, but I'm aware what you tried to say. However, as I said, Gallelio's theory was also outside the "accepted theory." No one is complaining as far as I can tell except you, and I'm still not sure you even understand what it is you're complaining about.

Then tell me. Describe what your theory is regarding what is driving the fast warming now.

You really think I'm proposing a scientific "theory" about earth's climate patterns? Seriously? You really must be a youngster.

This is where deniers usually run, being that they don't have a theory of any sort. All they have is contrarianism, and that's on their best day.

There you go again with the "denier" bit. You could sure use to sit in a few Science 100 classes and relearn what the scientific theory is really all about. You're throwing everything you can at the wall, hoping something will stick, but so far -- nada.

Here's an idea -- trying using that gray matter located between your ears instead of obediently swallowing everything your political party shoves down your throat. Try doing your own research. Try reading peer-reviewed papers, and not just the ones that agree with your pre-formed notions. Broaden your horizons. It's a big old world out there and you're going to miss it if you insist on staying firmly in cult-thought.

You're beginning to bore me.

[stjames1_53]

He wasn't the first, Copernicus published a heliocentric theory and was shot down, too, by the "settled science" of the day. Why do you say the "deniers" (a term that indicates you're a teenager) are politically-driven religious fanatics? A good number of them are secular scientists. The problem with the climate change theory is folks like you that make it all seem like a scam because you can't get your point across without acting like an imbecile.



You messed that up a little bit and should have looked it up before you typed it, but I'm aware what you tried to say. However, as I said, Gallelio's theory was also outside the "accepted theory." No one is complaining as far as I can tell except you, and I'm still not sure you even understand what it is you're complaining about.


You really think I'm proposing a scientific "theory" about earth's climate patterns? Seriously? You really must be a youngster.


There you go again with the "denier" bit. You could sure use to sit in a few Science 100 classes and relearn what the scientific theory is really all about. You're throwing everything you can at the wall, hoping something will stick, but so far -- nada.

Here's an idea -- trying using that gray matter located between your ears instead of obediently swallowing everything your political party shoves down your throat. Try doing your own research. Try reading peer-reviewed papers, and not just the ones that agree with your pre-formed notions. Broaden your horizons. It's a big old world out there and you're going to miss it if you insist on staying firmly in cult-thought.

You're beginning to bore me.

And it would seem that the climate changers failed to take in to account two things. This planet has been changing since it was first formed. It wont stop until the core goes cold or explodes.
Then there's celestial mechanics, and that's not so simple. It is amazing to me that someone thinks they are greater than our own galaxy. Man isn't anything but a speck on the grand scheme of things.

[AZ Jim]

DUH! What's a science?

president-Trump's-Insults-of-Sexual-Assault-Victims-gq.jpg

[stjames1_53]

DUH! What's a science?

Attachment 26209

What a juvenile post..............c'mon Jim ..it ain't gonna change a thang

[Peter1469]

DUH! What's a science?

Attachment 26209

Troll post.

[stjames1_53]

Troll post.

well, at least I tried to say it nice. But you're right.

[mamooth]

Why do you say the "deniers" (a term that indicates you're a teenager)

I'm not going to go uber-PC just because correct English triggers you. Those who deny science are deniers.

are politically-driven religious fanatics?

Because the evidence indicates that's the case. Denialism is restricted almost exclusively to the extreme right-wing fringe. If right-wing politics ceased to exist, denialism would vanish along with it.

In stark contrast, the real science crosses all political boundaries all around the world. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't be affected at all.

A good number of them are secular scientists.

Most with right-wing political beliefs, and almost exclusively being paid large amounts of cash by right-wing organizations.

Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money goes to the denier side. Any ethical scientist could double their salary by lying for the deniers. They don't. They reject the bribe money, which gives them even more credibility.

The problem with the climate change theory is folks like you that make it all seem like a scam because you can't get your point across without acting like an imbecile.

As basically the entire world agrees with me, my side clearly isn't have any trouble getting its point across, so your claim is delusional. You sound like a flat-earther screaming insults at the evil round-earthers.

You messed that up a little bit and should have looked it up before you typed it, but I'm aware what you tried to say. However, as I said, Gallelio's theory was also outside the "accepted theory." No one is complaining as far as I can tell except you, and I'm still not sure you even understand what it is you're complaining about.

Being that pointing out the failure of your logic and your reliance on pseudoscience isn't "complaining", that made no sense either.

You really think I'm proposing a scientific "theory" about earth's climate patterns? Seriously? You really must be a youngster.

No, I _asked_ you to do that. And predictably, you refused. So, you have no scientific theory, but you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion. Why do you expect not to be laughed at?

There you go again with the "denier" bit. You could sure use to sit in a few Science 100 classes and relearn what the scientific theory is really all about.

Says the guy who just refused to present a theory, and acts proud of it. You can't make this stuff up.

You're throwing everything you can at the wall, hoping something will stick, but so far -- nada.

Don't project. I've been consistent with one point, which is that deniers only do politics, and not science. In stark contrast, your and your side have been all over the place.

Here's an idea -- trying using that gray matter located between your ears instead of obediently swallowing everything your political party shoves down your throat.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you actually have to have a clue. That's why I can do it. I know the science very well, and can communicate it well, and I'm well practiced in spotting denier fraud and logic failures.

Now, how does your conspiracy website tell you to answer that?

Try doing your own research. Try reading peer-reviewed papers, and not just the ones that agree with your pre-formed notions. Broaden your horizons. It's a big old world out there and you're going to miss it if you insist on staying firmly in cult-thought.

Flat-earthers tell me the same thing. They're wrong for the same reasons you're wrong, because the hard data says so. You need to understand that the fanaticism your of beliefs has no bearing on whether those beliefs are true or not.

You're beginning to bore me.

I see you're preparing your "Declare victory and retreat" speech. Don't worry. That was expected, so you're not disappointing anyone. Deniers always run.

Of course, then they come back later spouting the exact same nonsense. That's another reason we know they're cultists. When a cultist sees sacred cult scripture debunked, that causes him to double down in his belief, their reasoning being that the evil unbelievers wouldn't attack cult dogma if it wasn't true.

[mamooth]

And it would seem that the climate changers failed to take in to account two things. This planet has been changing since it was first formed. It wont stop until the core goes cold or explodes.

Awful logic.

It's like saying "Forest fires used to always be natural, so that proves humans can't cause forest fires."

The fact that climate has changed without humans in no way prevents humans from changing climate.

Then there's celestial mechanics, and that's not so simple.

Orbital factors would have the Earth cooling slowly. Instead, the earth is warming fast. A logical mind would think "Hmmm. Climate is going the opposite way of natural forcings. That means the change is not natural".

It is amazing to me that someone thinks they are greater than our own galaxy. Man isn't anything but a speck on the grand scheme of things.

Fallacy of incredulity. You can't comprehend something, therefore you assume it can't happen.

[Chris]

So apparently according to liberal ideology humans are unnatural.