Underseer
Contributor
Behind creationism, climate change denialism is perhaps the second biggest anti-science movement. Sources listed in the video description.
There are too many arguments made to list them all here.
-
Features
YouTuber Potholer54 on top 10 climate change myths
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
Behind creationism, climate change denialism is perhaps the second biggest anti-science movement. Sources listed in the video description.
There are too many arguments made to list them all here.
Underseer
Contributor
Here's a link to the full 39 video series (of which this is the latest):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
He's incredibly detailed and backs up every assertion with proper citations. More importantly, he walks you through all the steps and shows how a regular, non-scientist person can research scientific claims made by others even if you can't get behind those annoying paywalls so many papers are behind.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
He's incredibly detailed and backs up every assertion with proper citations. More importantly, he walks you through all the steps and shows how a regular, non-scientist person can research scientific claims made by others even if you can't get behind those annoying paywalls so many papers are behind.
Underseer
Contributor
One telling thing about pseudoscience movements is not what they do and what they say as much as what they don't do.
If all of these climate change deniers really do understand the science better than 90+ percent of scientists, then they could prove it once and for all by using their superior understanding of climatology to make climate models that make more accurate predictions than the climate model they are criticizing.
Doing this would shut everyone up and prove once and for all that they are right and that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong all these decades. It would completely end all debate once and for all in their favor.
And yet, mysteriously, none of them are doing this. Not one of those deniers[ent]mdash[/ent]each of whom claims to have a greater understanding of all this stuff than the scientists who support the existing climate model[ent]mdash[/ent]has used their superior understanding of science to do the one thing that would settle the debate conclusively.
Compare this to, say, the flat Earth people, who could settle all debate on this topic in their favor with a single photograph of the edge of the Earth. Mysteriously, in this age of rockets and ships and camera drones, not one of them has traveled to the edge of the Earth to take a picture that would prove their case once and for all.
Creationists could settle all debate once and for all by providing evidence of God creating life. Any evidence. Yet mysteriously, they don't and instead focus all their efforts on lying about the evidence for evolution as though disproving evolution would somehow prove creationism.
It's what they don't do and won't do that identifies them as pseudoscience more than what they do or what they say.
If all of these climate change deniers really do understand the science better than 90+ percent of scientists, then they could prove it once and for all by using their superior understanding of climatology to make climate models that make more accurate predictions than the climate model they are criticizing.
Doing this would shut everyone up and prove once and for all that they are right and that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong all these decades. It would completely end all debate once and for all in their favor.
And yet, mysteriously, none of them are doing this. Not one of those deniers[ent]mdash[/ent]each of whom claims to have a greater understanding of all this stuff than the scientists who support the existing climate model[ent]mdash[/ent]has used their superior understanding of science to do the one thing that would settle the debate conclusively.
Compare this to, say, the flat Earth people, who could settle all debate on this topic in their favor with a single photograph of the edge of the Earth. Mysteriously, in this age of rockets and ships and camera drones, not one of them has traveled to the edge of the Earth to take a picture that would prove their case once and for all.
Creationists could settle all debate once and for all by providing evidence of God creating life. Any evidence. Yet mysteriously, they don't and instead focus all their efforts on lying about the evidence for evolution as though disproving evolution would somehow prove creationism.
It's what they don't do and won't do that identifies them as pseudoscience more than what they do or what they say.