qanda,

(Double LOL:)

Yeah, I dunno what the answer is.

Arguing on blogs, I suppose, is something you scientists can either take or leave - depends if you're in the mood or not, I imagine.

I'm quite interested however, in how the denialist spiel will be translated politically if it's digested heartily by the populace.

However, interesting here http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/30/all-three-senators-who-voted-against-john-kerry-are-pro-keystone-xl-anti-science-climate-deniers?utm ....that the deniers were in the absolute minority when voting for a man who prioritises science based climate advocacy.

For me, it's the denialist phenomenon that's of interest - and how obviously it's connected with business as usual and the maintenance of the status quo.

You have a point Poirot:

"it's the denialist phenomenon that's of interest - and how obviously it's connected with business as usual and the maintenance of the status quo."

Some people just don't want to see/hear what they just don't want to see/hear.

Time and time again some people who haven't got a clue about 'climate science' tell the experts they are the ones who haven't got a clue about 'climate science'. Why? Because they heard so-and-so (insert your own non-climate scientist so-and-so) say it's all crap.

I've had an auto-mechanic scare the beejeebus out of me when they've found out what I do. From my POV, no way would I tell him he hasn't got a clue about auto-mechanics but there you go. Sure, I might have a question and if I don't like the answer, I can go to someone else. But it would seem silly (illogical) to go to 99 other mechanics before I find an answer I like.

What I find really disturbing is that people who are "trained scientists" can behave the same way as the auto-mechanic. Ok, I won't accept the prognostications of a pediatrician if what I really need is a cardiologist, but they should at least be able to "understand" scientific checks and balances.

Honestly, I really can't get my head around how 'climate change denialsim' has captured the brains of so many. A colleague of mine has described it as a deliberate dumbing down of our society - that's scary!

On that note I bid farewell, unless I feel in the mood : )

Apologies to the author of this thread, it seems to have been derailed. FWIW, the seas are rising and the Earth is not flat.

qanda,

I'm inclined to agree with your colleague that it is a dumbing down - or at least the deliberate promotion of ignorance. I can't think of an instance in modern times, however, where scientists have been purposely demonised to the extent they have regarding climate science.

All you can do as a scientist is apply your knowledge and training to the best of your ability and carry on with your work.

It's interesting that psychologists and communicators have begun to take a greater interest in the phenomenon, and that they now appear to working in tandem with climate scientists to counter the denialism.

Will catch you (when you're in the mood:)

tende ad astra : )

To any who care,

This whole discussion has been a very sad experience for me. I am not a climate scientist. I am a biological scientist with enough understanding of the science to know when science, politicians and journalists lie.

If your science is so good, why wouldn't you answer my questions?

Why does your side of the argument lie about your science? Why did Rudd lie to the people in 2009 and since then?

Why do our teachers still teach the lies of Al Gore?

Why does Phil Jones and the Univ. of East Anglia lie and refuse to publish their data?

Why does the IPCC cherry pick its science? For example, the lies about Polar Bears?

Why do you make ad hominem attacks and continually lie about the source of the science I presented?

On not one occasion did any of you "warmists" attack the science or give me on reference to support your statements!

It is the lies and the politics that I find so offensive.

I watch Bob Carter and listen to Jennifer Marohasy and I believe them. I listen to Labor scientists telling us that the lower reaches of the Murray and the lakes have been fresh for the last 7,000 years and I am amazed that this gov't can make a policy on the Murray Darling that is based on lies, but defended by the ABC as the truth!

Scientists such as William Kininmonth are ignored. Why do so many ex CSIRO scientists come out against the current CSIRO science?

Why does the CSIRO have disclaimers attached to their science?

I have so many questions that your side won't answer or even discuss. Your science is badly bent by your politics!

Like most of you, I am also retiring from this thresd.

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza

Finally, the topic of this thread is "The Seas are Rising, the Earth is Flat."

The extent of sea-level rise is highly controversial. Even the Vic ALP Gov't did not take it seriously!

Is the earth flat? The Greeks knew over three thousand years ago that the earth was spherical, as did all sailors. The Greeks even calculated the circumference quite accurately. The Catholic Church decided in the Middle Ages that the earth was flat. Was that science or politics?

We all need to decide if we are Greeks or Catholics!

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza

Geoffrey,

You present as the quintessential denier.

Your recent points:

* They don't. He didn't.

* They aren't lies.

* They don't.

* They don't. (Here's a polar bear to give you a few pointers :) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-wagner/lets-get-real-about-global_b_2571504.html

* You bounced in here hurling ad homs, matey...

* Why should qanda waste his valuable time spelling out the science here. If you had bothered to investigate his links, you would have found all the "science" and "references" you requested.

* If you digest and believe denialists (most of whom - like yourself - are not trained in the various disciplines comprising climate science) then it's clear you're not impartial....like qanda said, when "trained scientists" corral their sensibilities with politically inspired bias - we've got a problem.

"Your science is badly bent by your politics!"

Ho, Ho, Ho! (pot-kettle situation here :)

Have another read of this - it sums up your stance perfectly:

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065