Debunking Denialism

Fighting pseudoscience and quackery with reason and evidence.

Tag Archives: climate

Six Hilarious Pseudoscience Contradictions


Pseudosciences are the imposters of real science. They attempt to mimic the activities and language used by scientists, but have no intellectual substance beneath their shallow surface. This is likely because science has such a strong cultural authority and has been responsible for many beneficial and exciting discoveries during the past few centuries. Anything that attempts to parasitize on science can potentially steal some of this authority from science.

Yet, because pseudosciences are not based on credible arguments or evidence, they contain a combination of wishful thinking and stuff that is plainly made up. Because critical thinking and scientific evidence plays very little role (in any), it is not surprising that inconsistencies and contradictions have crept into many forms of pseudoscience. These contradictions do not just occur between different kinds of pseudosciences, such as chiropractors claiming that giving birth is a massive trauma and that newborns must get spinal adjustments while natural birth activists think that giving birth in the wilderness is completely safe. They can also be found within a specific pseudoscience and that produces many great ironies that many quacks and cranks seem completely oblivious to. Let us look at six such hilarious pseudoscience contradictions. Read more of this post

Local Weather Still Not Global Climate

Temperature measurements

Climate change looks to be one of the major challenges facing humans in the 21th century and beyond. The evidence has accumulated to such an extent that we now can be reasonably confident that there is a current warming trend and that the human emission of greenhouse gases is a powerful contributing factor.

In fact, not only was April of 2016 the warmest April globally that has ever been recorded since measurements started, it is part of a 12-month streak of records. Yet, climate change denialism is alive and well.

There are thousands and thousands of newspaper articles, blog posts and social media groups that discuss global warming and climate change, yet people do not seem to be able to grasp the basic concepts of the field. One such prominent example is the difference between local weather and global climate. To put it simply, local weather is what you see outside the window, whereas global climate is long-term average trends for the entire world. NASA has a great article explaining the difference between weather and climate in additional detail.

Thus, it makes no sense to say that there is no global climate change because it was recently cold in some local area. Yet this is what climate change denialists and a lot of laypeople argue. In reality, it is as dumb as saying that there is no world hunger because you had a snack to eat last night or that because you no longer have a cold, infectious diseases must not be an issue globally.

Read more of this post

Is Donald Trump Scientifically Illiterate?

Donald Trump does not understand climate change

One of the most basic distinctions in climate science is the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the instantaneous atmospheric conditions, such as rainy, snowy, sunny and so on. Climate, on the other hand, is about long-term trends. Confusing weather with climate, claiming that we cannot predict climate because we cannot predict weather, or trying to argue against the existence of human-influenced climate change by referencing current weather events is one of the most common tactic used by climate change denier.

Trump fails on climate knowledge

Contrary to Trump, the existence of local anomalies does not refute a general trend. More about the difference of weather and climate can be found on the NASA website.

Donald Trump does not understand vaccines or the immune system

Trump claims to not be anti-vaccine, yet he pulls out a classic anti-vaccine trope:

Too many, too soon? Nope!

While the number of vaccines have increased over time, the number of immunological challenges (“antigens”) have decreased. This is because modern DNA technology has enabled researchers to include only those components that are necessary to produce a good response. In other words, vaccines poses a smaller challenge to the immune system now than it did in the past. For more information, see the Offit et al. (2002) paper in Pediatrics.

Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: