# How to respond to subtil science denial?

**URL:** <https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581>\
**Category:** Science and Technology\
**Created:** [December 5, 2023, 12:00pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581 "2023-12-05T12:00:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lozenge](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lozenge/32/23405_2.png) [@lozenge](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lozenge)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 12:00pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/1 "2023-12-05T12:00:23Z")

</div>

How to respond to subtil science denial?

I noticed that science deniers are not all “simple and brutal” guys who simply shout “scientists are stupid ignorants who lie to us all day long”.

Many are much more subtle.

They will go with arguments such as “it is not that scientific research is irrelevant, but it is true that it is easy to make research tell the (ideological) narrative that you want, by using a specific sample, by interpreting the results in certain way, by synthesizing the results in certain way, again by using the results to benefit a certain (ideological) narrative.”

When you point them to the fact that there are mechanisms of counter-verification, including meta-analysis, they will point to the fact that most of the time the research replications are not well done for the reason no one wants to fund this kind of replication project, and that even there the meta-analysis replication most of the time gives negative replicability, or they will point to the problem of the [positive bias in publication](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lozenge](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lozenge/32/23405_2.png) [@lozenge](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lozenge)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 12:05pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/2 "2023-12-05T12:05:49Z")

</div>

But behind these apparently rational arguments hides a deep cynicism about science (human) capacity to reach any kind of objective knowledge on reality.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 2:26pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/3 "2023-12-05T14:26:28Z")

</div>

I got another one.  
When propagandists use exposed flawed psychology studies to attack various Earth sciences and scientists, and being totally oblivious to the radially different nature of the two and their study matter and process.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lozenge](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lozenge/32/23405_2.png) [@lozenge](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lozenge)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 2:32pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/4 "2023-12-05T14:32:32Z")

</div>

> [@citizenschallengev4](#):
>
> When propagandists use exposed flawed psychology studies to attack various Earth sciences and scientists, and being totally oblivious to the radially different nature of the two and their study matter and process.

The guys precisely took the example that in social psychology, more than 50% of the studies were not replicable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lozenge](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lozenge/32/23405_2.png) [@lozenge](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lozenge)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 2:34pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/5 "2023-12-05T14:34:16Z")

</div>

Also adding that even clinical trials are often not reproduced positively

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![coffee](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/coffee/32/28536_2.png) [@coffee](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/coffee)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 5:43pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/6 "2023-12-05T17:43:57Z")

</div>

This is such an important topic for the successful future of our species.

First, most societies have a poor understanding of math, statistics, logic, science, and physics. So, they are unarmed against charlatans.

Second, they are correct in observing that much of science is broken. There **are** people who fudge statistics/results to suit their biases or to get more grant money. Hell, there are entire industries dedicated to rejecting valid science.

Third, some people are simply ignorant and placed in positions of authority. For example, from the book, _Merchants of Doubt_:

> Blockquote  
> The distinction between the troposphere and the stratosphere became part of the Supreme Court hearing in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, in which twelve states sued the federal government for failing to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the clean air act. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that there was nothing in the law to require the EPA to act - but the honorable justice also got lost in the science, at one point referring to the stratosphere when he meant the troposphere. A lawyer for Massachusetts replied, “Respectfully your honor. It is not the stratosphere. It’s the troposphere.” The justice answered, “Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I’m not a scientist. That’s why I don’t want to deal with global warming.”

And there are rogue scientists who arm the ignorant masses with doubt (E.g., Fred and Russell Seitz, and Fred Singer) as their articles would appear in business journals whose readers were all about free-markets and no government intervention. During the Reagan administration, it was frowned upon to mention acid rain just as George W, Bush didn’t want to hear about global warming. Think tanks like the CATO institute paid these scientists to publish misleading articles.

Most people do not place reason over emotion. It’s easy to scare/anger such people. As Fox News clearly illustrates.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lozenge](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lozenge/32/23405_2.png) [@lozenge](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lozenge)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 6:12am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/7 "2023-12-06T06:12:07Z")

</div>

> [@coffee](#):
>
> Second, they are correct in observing that much of science is broken. There **are** people who fudge statistics/results to suit their biases or to get more grant money. Hell, there are entire industries dedicated to rejecting valid science.

Yes, but the arguments of these hidden science deniers is that the idea that we can use science in and of itself to come to a certain form of objective knowledge is basically flawed.

I can’t find the meme, but they can share memes where the whole of scientific publications is found unreplicated.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![coffee](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/coffee/32/28536_2.png) [@coffee](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/coffee)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 1:49pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/8 "2023-12-06T13:49:56Z")

</div>

> [@lozenge](#):
>
> Yes, but the arguments of these hidden science deniers is that the idea that we can use science in and of itself to come to a certain form of objective knowledge is basically flawed.

But the science deniers are wrong. Science is the best we can do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 3:54pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/9 "2023-12-06T15:54:17Z")

</div>

> [@lozenge](#):
>
> I can’t find the meme, but they can share memes where the whole of scientific publications is found unreplicated.

Dig it up.  
That would be interesting to find out how that train of logic works.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lozenge](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lozenge/32/23405_2.png) [@lozenge](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lozenge)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 4:23pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/10 "2023-12-06T16:23:23Z")

</div>

I really tried! But can’t find it…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 8:47pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/11 "2023-12-06T20:47:39Z")

</div>

This may have some information.

> One of the first questions [Lee McIntyre](https://leemcintyrebooks.com/), a philosopher at [Boston University](https://www.bu.edu/), poses about those who insist the Earth is flat is: “Can these people be serious?”

> As one of the most extreme examples of science denial, McIntyre starts his book, _How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason_ , by describing his visit to the 2018 Flat Earth International Conference in Denver, US. The answer to his question, he quickly concludes, is “yes, completely so”.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/uploads/centerforinquiry/original/3X/c/4/c443ba236571dcfe57ba807245121a12b448efb1.jpeg)

> McIntyre provides a useful analysis of how to identify science denial. **He describes five elements that are almost always part of the arguments: cherry-picking evidence; belief in conspiracies around the issue; reliance on fake experts; logical errors; and setting impossible levels of evidence for any opposing views**.

> Given this, McIntyre explains that combating science denial can be done by correcting the inaccuracies of the science, but also by pointing out the fallacies in the mode of thinking, known as technique rebuttal.

> He also sets out carefully the argument for why we can and should engage with science deniers. A study in 2010 demonstrated a “backfire effect”, where presenting the evidence against a person’s position causes an even stronger adherence to it – leading to the demoralizing idea that there may be no point in fighting back. But McIntyre reports that these results were never replicated. In fact, a breakthrough experiment done in 2019 by behavioural scientists [Philipp Schmid](https://philippschmid.org/) and [Cornelia Betsch](https://www.uni-erfurt.de/en/philosophische-fakultaet/seminare-professuren/medien-und-kommunikationswissenschaft/professuren/gesundheitskommunikation/team/prof-dr-cornelia-betsch) from the [University of Erfurt](https://www.uni-erfurt.de/en/), Germany, showed that several methods of rebuttal were more effective than no response at all.

more…

> **[The causes of science denial and how to combat it – Physics World](https://physicsworld.com/a/the-causes-of-science-denial-and-how-to-combat-it/)**
>
> Rachel Brazil reviews How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason by Lee McIntyre

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 10:21pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/12 "2023-12-06T22:21:49Z")

</div>

> [@coffee](#):
>
> > [@lozenge](#):
> >
> > Yes, but the arguments of these hidden science deniers is that the idea that we can use science in and of itself to come to a certain form of objective knowledge is basically flawed.
> 
> But the science deniers are wrong. Science is the best we can do.

But people need information, that’s why regarding climate science specifically some people created **[SkepticalScience.com](https://skepticalscience.com)**, they’ve rundown and examined pretty near every contrarian argument ever advertised. Then do a great job of dissecting the argument and then sharing the scientific understanding. Always based on actual published papers, and always share the sources of those papers, so people can _do the research for the themselves._ Or at least verify the story.

> # **[SkepticalScience.com’s](https://skepticalscience.com)** Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy
> 
> - 
> ### [It’s not happening](https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - [Temp record is unreliable](https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm)
> - [Hockey stick is broken](https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm)
> - [Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960](https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm)
> - [Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick](https://skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm)
> 
> - [Dropped stations introduce warming bias](https://skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm)
> - [It’s Urban Heat Island effect](https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm)
> - [1934 - hottest year on record](https://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm)
> - [It’s microsite influences](https://skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temperature.htm)
> - [Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures](https://skepticalscience.com/Great-Lakes-satellite-temperature.htm)
> - [Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers](https://skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm)
> 
> - [It’s cooling](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm)
> - [We’re heading into an ice age](https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm)
> - [It’s freaking cold!](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm)
> - [Record snowfall disproves global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm)
> - [Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009](https://skepticalscience.com/record-snow-cover.htm)
> 
> - [2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells](https://skepticalscience.com/December-2009-record-cold-spells.htm)
> 
> - [Oceans are cooling](https://skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm)
> - [It hasn’t warmed since 1998](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)
> - [Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995](https://skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm)
> - [Global warming stopped in ~~1998~~ , ~~1995~~ , ~~2002~~ , ~~2007~~ , ~~2010~~ , ???](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm)
> - [BEST hides the decline in global temperature](https://skepticalscience.com/best-hides-the-decline-in-global-temperature.htm)
> - [No warming in 16 years](https://skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm)
> 
> - [DMI show cooling Arctic](https://skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic.htm)
> - [We’re heading into cooling](https://skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm)
> 
> - [Ice isn’t melting](https://skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming.htm)
> - [Antarctica is gaining ice](https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm)
> - [Antarctica is too cold to lose ice](https://skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm)
> 
> - [Glaciers are growing](https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)
> - [Greenland is gaining ice](https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm)
> - [Ice Sheet losses are overestimated](https://skepticalscience.com/Ice-Sheet-mass-loss-melting.htm)
> 
> - [Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle](https://skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm)
> - [Arctic sea ice has recovered](https://skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm)
> - [Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain](https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm)
> - [Arctic sea ice loss in the 1940s was similar to today’s](https://skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-loss-1940s.htm)
> - [Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past](https://skepticalscience.com/past-Arctic-sea-ice-extent.htm)
> 
> - [Northwest passage has been navigated in the past](https://skepticalscience.com/northwest-passage-has-been-navigated-in-the-past.htm)
> - [Arctic Storm Caused the 2012 Record Sea Ice Minimum](https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-storm-caused-2012-record-minimum.htm)
> 
> - [Southern sea ice is increasing](https://skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice.htm)
> 
> - [Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy](https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm)
> - [Trenberth can’t account for the lack of warming](https://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm)
> - [Scientists tried to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature](https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm)
> - [Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored](https://skepticalscience.com/Freedom-of-Information-FOI-requests-climate-scientists.htm)
> - [Peer review process was corrupted](https://skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm)
> - [Climate science peer review is pal review](https://skepticalscience.com/pal-review.htm)
> 
> - [CRU tampered with temperature data](https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm)
> - [Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?](https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic-scientists-ipcc.htm)
> 
> - [Sea level rise is exaggerated](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)
> - [Sea level rise is decelerating](https://skepticalscience.com/decelerating-sea-level-rise.htm)
> - [Sea level fell in 2010](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010.htm)
> 
> - [Sea level is not rising](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising.htm)
> - [Tuvalu sea level isn’t rising](https://skepticalscience.com/Tuvalu-sea-level-rise.htm)
> 
> - [There is no consensus](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm)
> - [IPCC is alarmist](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm)
> - [IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests](https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-false-predictions-Amazon-rainforests.htm)
> - [IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers](https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm)
> - [Himalayan glaciers are not shrinking](https://skepticalscience.com/shrinking-Himalayan-glaciers.htm)
> 
> - [IPCC overestimate temperature rise](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm)
> - [Monckton shows the IPCC overestimated warming](https://skepticalscience.com/monckton-ipcc-overestimated-warming.htm)
> 
> - [IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period](https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm)
> - [The IPCC consensus is phoney](https://skepticalscience.com/Hulme-IPCC-consensus.htm)
> - [IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-graph-showing-accelerating-trends-is-misleading.htm)
> - [IPCC edited out natural causes of climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-edited-out-natural-causes-of-climate-change.htm)
> - [IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-human-caused-global-warming-attribution-confidence.htm)
> - [IPCC global warming projections were wrong](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm)
> 
> - [Al Gore got it wrong](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)
> - [Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm)
> - [500 scientists refute the consensus](https://skepticalscience.com/500-scientists-global-warming-consensus.htm)
> - [Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus was flawed](https://skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm)
> - [The science isn’t settled](https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm)
> - [They changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)
> - [Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project](https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm)
> - [Climate ‘Skeptics’ are like Galileo](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm)
> - [Royal Society embraces skepticism](https://skepticalscience.com/royal-society-climate-change-uncertainty.htm)
> - [The 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result](https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-discredited.htm)
> - [97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven](https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm)
> 
> - [Climate scientists are in it for the money](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm)
> - [Springs aren’t advancing](https://skepticalscience.com/advancing-spring-global-warming.htm)
> - [Melting ice isn’t warming the Arctic](https://skepticalscience.com/Melting-ice-isnt-warming-Arctic.htm)
> 
> - 
> ### [It’s not us](https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm)
> 
> - [There’s no empirical evidence](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)
> - [Increasing CO2 has little to no effect](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm)
> - [CO2 is just a trace gas](https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm)
> - [CO2 has a short residence time](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm)
> - [CO2 effect is saturated](https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm)
> - [Postma disproved the greenhouse effect](https://skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm)
> 
> - [Greenhouse effect has been falsified](https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm)
> - [2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory](https://skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm)
> - [Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect](https://skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm)
> - [CO2 only causes 35% of global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm)
> - [Removing all CO2 would make little difference](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-free-atmosphere.htm)
> 
> - [Climate’s changed before](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)
> - [Medieval Warm Period was warmer](https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm)
> - [Greenland was green](https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm)
> - [We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age](https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm)
> - [Akasofu Proved Global Warming is Just a Recovery from the Little Ice Age](https://skepticalscience.com/akasofu-LIA-recovery.htm)
> 
> - [CO2 was higher in the past](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm)
> - [CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician](https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm)
> - [Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels](https://skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm)
> 
> - [Arctic was warmer in 1940](https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-was-warmer-in-1940.htm)
> - [It’s a 1500 year cycle](https://skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm)
> - [It’s a climate regime shift](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-shift-synchronized-chaos.htm)
> - [It’s a climate shift step function caused by natural cycles](https://skepticalscience.com/its-a-climate-shift-step-function-caused-by-natural-cycles.htm)
> 
> - [It’s a natural cycle](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm)
> - [It’s internal variability](https://skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm)
> - [Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm)
> 
> - [It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-1860-1880-and-1910-1940.htm)
> - [Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer](https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm)
> - [Humans survived past climate changes](https://skepticalscience.com/humans-survived-past-climate-changes.htm)
> - [Heatwaves have happened before](https://skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm)
> 
> - [There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm)
> - [It cooled mid-century](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm)
> - [CO2 lags temperature](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)
> - [Warming causes CO2 rise](https://skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm)
> - [CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm)
> 
> - [It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm)
> - [We didn’t have global warming during the Industrial Revolution](https://skepticalscience.com/Industrial-Revolution-global-warming.htm)
> - [Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature](https://skepticalscience.com/soares-correlation-co2-temperature.htm)
> - [An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature](https://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm)
> 
> - [It’s the sun](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)
> - [It’s cosmic rays](https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm)
> - [CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - [Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm)
> - [The sun is getting hotter](https://skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm)
> - [Water levels correlate with sunspots](https://skepticalscience.com/sunspots-and-water-levels.htm)
> - [Solar cycles cause global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm)
> - [A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age](https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm)
> 
> - [Other planets are warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm)
> - [Neptune is warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm)
> - [Mars is warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm)
> - [Jupiter is warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm)
> - [Pluto is warming](https://skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - [It’s the ocean](https://skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming.htm)
> - [It’s El Niño](https://skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm)
> - [It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation](https://skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm)
> 
> - [CO2 is not the only driver of climate](https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm)
> - [It’s soot](https://skepticalscience.com/soot-global-warming.htm)
> - [It’s aerosols](https://skepticalscience.com/aerosols-global-warming.htm)
> - [A drop in volcanic activity caused warming](https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm)
> 
> - [It’s ozone](https://skepticalscience.com/ozone-layer-global-warming.htm)
> - [It’s methane](https://skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm)
> - [Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm)
> - [Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions](https://skepticalscience.com/veganism.htm)
> 
> - [It’s land use](https://skepticalscience.com/land-use-and-global-warming.htm)
> - [It’s albedo](https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm)
> - [It’s satellite microwave transmissions](https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-microwave-transmissions.htm)
> - [It’s waste heat](https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm)
> - [It’s CFCs](https://skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm)
> - [Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm)
> - [Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-stratosphere-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - [It’s global brightening](https://skepticalscience.com/global-brightening-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - [Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate](https://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm)
> - [Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions](https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)
> - [CO2 is coming from the ocean](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm)
> - [Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans](https://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm)
> - [CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration](https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm)
> - [Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup](https://skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm)
> - [Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural](https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm)
> 
> - [CO2 is not increasing](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm)
> - [CO2 measurements are suspect](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm)
> - [Mauna Loa is a volcano](https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements.htm)
> 
> - [Models are unreliable](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)
> - [Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted](https://skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm)
> - [Ice age predicted in the 70s](https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm)
> - [Scientists can’t even predict weather](https://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm)
> - [There’s no tropospheric hot spot](https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm)
> - [Satellites show no warming in the troposphere](https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)
> 
> - [Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong](https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm)
> - [Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater](https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm)
> 
> - [UAH atmospheric temperatures prove climate models and/or surface temperature data sets are wrong](https://skepticalscience.com/uah-atmospheric-temperatures-prove-climate-models-and-or-surface-temperature-measurements-are-wrong.htm)
> 
> - [Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm)
> - [Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm)
> - [The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-global-warming.htm)
> - [Climate change isn’t increasing extreme weather damage costs](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-increasing-extreme-weather-damage-costs.htm)
> 
> - [Wildfires are not caused by global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/wildfires-global-warming.htm)
> - [Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use](https://skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm)
> - [Nuclear testing is causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear-testing-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - 
> ### [It’s not bad](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm)
> 
> - [Climate sensitivity is low](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm)
> - [Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected](https://skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm)
> - [Infrared Iris will reduce global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm)
> - [Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity](https://skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm)
> - [Positive feedback means runaway warming](https://skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming.htm)
> - [Humidity is falling](https://skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm)
> - [Clouds provide negative feedback](https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm)
> - [Roy Spencer finds negative feedback](https://skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm)
> - [Schmittner finds low climate sensitivity](https://skepticalscience.com/schmittner-finds-low-climate-sensitivity.htm)
> - [Tropical thermostat limits sea surface temperature to 30°C](https://skepticalscience.com/tropical-terhmostat-limits-sea-surface-temperature-to-30C.htm)
> - [No long tail means climate sensitivity is low](https://skepticalscience.com/no-long-tail-means-climate-sensitivity-is-low.htm)
> 
> - [Animals and plants can adapt](https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm)
> - [Polar bear numbers are increasing](https://skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - [Greenland ice sheet won’t collapse](https://skepticalscience.com/stable-greenland-ice-sheet.htm)
> - [CO2 is not a pollutant](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm)
> - [CO2 is plant food](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm)
> - [Ocean acidification isn’t serious](https://skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming.htm)
> - [Corals are resilient to bleaching](https://skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm)
> 
> - [Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm)
> - [Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising](https://skepticalscience.com/Scientists-retracted-claim-rising-sea-levels.htm)
> - [Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise](https://skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm)
> 
> - [Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass](https://skepticalscience.com/Greenland-lost-fraction-of-ice-mass.htm)
> - [It’s only a few degrees](https://skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm)
> 
> - 
> ### [It’s too hard](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm)
> 
> - [CO2 limits will harm the economy](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm)
> - [Climate change solutions are too expensive](https://skepticalscience.com/too-expensive.htm)
> - [Renewable energy is too expensive](https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm)
> - [Renewable energy investment kills jobs](https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-investment-kills-jobs.htm)
> 
> - [CO2 limits will hurt the poor](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm)
> - [CO2 limits will make little difference](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-will-make-little-difference.htm)
> - [CO2 limits won’t cool the planet](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-wont-cool-the-planet.htm)
> 
> - [Renewables can’t provide baseload power](https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm)
> - [It’s not urgent](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-urgent.htm)  
> … **[SkepticalScience.com](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage)**

Of course, this is where good faith curiosity, honest teaching, honest constructive debate, desire to learn, rather than a commitment to champion one position or the other come in handy.  
Let the facts make up your mind, but that requires a lot of time and effort.  
And most simply don’t care that much, none of all this connects with their emotions and concerns. That’s a tragedy.

And one reason I say it’s time to stop being so complacent about counter productive philosophical indulgences. Waking up to the new day we have created for ourselves and children and grandchildren.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![coffee](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/coffee/32/28536_2.png) [@coffee](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/coffee)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2023, 10:40pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/how-to-respond-to-subtil-science-denial/10581/13 "2023-12-06T22:40:24Z")

</div>

I have to agree. We’ll see how many care and if they care enough. Well, I don’t mean that I will see. I’m 70! 😂