A Psychologist Explains the Thinking Error at the Root of Science Denial

I understand the article...it happens out of a mix of sheer human intransigence, the penchant for which goes back to the dawn of time, mixed with sheer benighted ignorance as to how to read scie tific papers, combined with an almost omnipresent human tendency to refuse to let go of exploded ideas, e.g. alcehmy or the flat Earth, which I've actually seen sites about, incl on here. Climate science, and I know I'm gonna be disagreed with, I get that is via ry definitely not fantasy...I've been trained in it, I've read countless papers on it, I'm well aware how such mathematical modeling is done...a good deal of clapimate change can I think he explained by perturbation theory, an avenue I think has often been overlooked, despite it being a very real field in mathematical physics with a very long pedigree...also, I've read very, very extensively on chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics, satellite studies on plant life, he air-ocean interface, etc. The further ceaseless human tendency to try to get around evolution is merely yet another example...I spent my whole existence before my disability doing science, studying science, being taught science, all kinds of science, and I can assure AOL of you I had to often learn the hard way to tepp the difference between science and pseudoscience, which are notmapways distinguishable all that easily...as I'd said, I know I'm gonna get disagreed with, I expect that, however, those are my thoughts, such as they are....

Interesting read

Very strange article. When talking about climate change he miss leads on several points. The climate has always changed. Once the Antarctic was warm. Once Greenland was green. So the climate always changes. The real question isn’t climate change, it is how much are humans responses for the climate change we are now experiencing? How much can humans change the direction of the climate change we are seeing and how severe is it? The science of climate change has deep issues. There are issues with data collection. Measured temperatures have been increased by up to 3 degrees. The climate models all fail.This isn’t minor. The failure of climate models goes to the heart of science, the ability to gather data, analyze it and make predictions based on those observations. Climate science has failed measurably at it. When predictions and models fail there is a mad rush to explain it. When the earth didn’t warm warm to the extent predicted we were told the heat was sequestered in the ocean. Then when ocean temps were measured the elevations predicted weren’t there. Then we were told the heat was sequestered in the Gobi desert. Nope. Oh well just ignore these failures and move on. There are scientists well credentialialed in climate science who question their fellow scientists. When the American Physical Science organization will not allow discussions of climate change it isn’t science anymore but dogma. Thinking you can keep the earth’s climate from changing is foolishness. So I would ask who are the deniers of reality, those who fudge temperatures, deny reality and think they can influence the world’s climate or those who question “scientist predetermining results and altering data to reflect the predetermined results?