# Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?



## basilio (19 May 2012)

Came across an interesting paper in a Public Health journal which explored the issue of misinformation.

Worth a read.

*Black is white and White is black*
"HIV doesn't cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BC.Smoking doesn't cause cancer.. "

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full.pdf


----------



## Glen48 (19 May 2012)

it has never been proven HIV causes AIDS however the maker's of AZT push the claim which helps them sell drugs which kill and cause AIDS.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2012)

Actually, having demonstrated "The Impossibility of Objectivity in Leftist Thought" in my PhD thesis I am starting on a new one as an adjunct.

It will be titled "The Inevitability of Catastrophilia in Fabian Polluted Minds" and will prove irrevocably that belief in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is just the latest iteration of a mental disease, coined Catastrophilia.

Evidence presented will include the proven lack of objectivity in debate and the tendency to faux academic ad hominem. Thanks for the link basilio, it will be useful to prove my hypothesis.


----------



## awg (19 May 2012)

I did hear a relevant analogy recently.

I dont know what a Climate Scientist is, however, one would assume they would be highly qualified at a degree level in mainstream Earth Science, and probably across more than one discipline, ie knowledgeable on there profession.

I have a better idea what an aircraft engineer does though, and they are also highly qualified in an engineering capacity.

So if I had 97 aircraft engineers telling me a plane had some potentially serious deficiencies, and 3 saying it was safe..well I reckon almost everyone would want urgent action on that one


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2012)

awg said:


> I did hear a relevant analogy recently.
> 
> I dont know what a Climate Scientist is, however, one would assume they would be highly qualified at a degree level in mainstream Earth Science, and probably across more than one discipline, ie knowledgeable on there profession.
> 
> ...




Wouldn't an engineer check the veracity of the purported 97% agreement?c


----------



## Gringotts Bank (19 May 2012)

There's two ways to view this topic.

On the one hand, that article makes perfect sense.  People deny what makes them afraid.  They also tend to deny ideas and thoughts that might impact their well-being.  Denial is one of many ego defense mechanisms, so you will see it most pronounced in people who have very strong egos.  

On the other hand, thoughts create our reality.  If we really don't believe in climate change, then we won't experience it.  If someone is deeply hypnotized and a suggestion is made that he will not be able to see the color red, he won't experience it.  You could say that's just an extension of an ego defense, but if it's done as a conscious willful decision, then it's not.  It's me deciding that I see the science, I respect it, I understand it, but I'm choosing a different belief.... "climate change is not true _for me_".

No belief is true.  You just choose.  Beliefs are nothing more than random firings in the brain, conditioned by exposure to the media and personal memories.  If a whole population was to decide on a new belief, so it becomes.  eg. in the 1940's Hitler hypnotized an entire nation to believe that Jews were dirty scum who should be exterminated.  People actually believed this, so it was true.  Nowadays they don't believe so much, so it's not so true.  In the old days, fat women with very white skin were beautiful and worthy of capturing on canvas.  Then tans were beautiful, and now they're not again.  Oh and the fat thing is out too.  These aren't just fads, they are beliefs, and all beliefs work the same way.

Science is handy in one sense, but must be used cautiously, IMO.  Nothing is true.  You won't understand this until you take the red pill.  Most people are unwilling.


----------



## Glen48 (19 May 2012)

One of the biggest human failings are refusing to accept you may be wrong, Scurvy was found to be caused by lack of vitamin  C yet scientist search for a 100 yr to find the cause.
Pouring boiling oil on an open wound continued for 300 yr when it had been demonstrated  tying off the blood vessels worked.
 Then we have Colon Powell with his presentation of WMD's etc when all the facts where there to prove they didn't exist.  
 As well as a lot of other examples

Maybe its nature way of making sure we making sure we take any situation to the outer border in all directions and this makes sure Nature is getting the best deal after all Nature is behind every thing we do.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 May 2012)

awg said:


> I did hear a relevant analogy recently.
> 
> I dont know what a Climate Scientist is, however, one would assume they would be highly qualified at a degree level in mainstream Earth Science, and probably across more than one discipline, ie knowledgeable on there profession.
> 
> ...




Pretty hard to argue against that kind of logic.

But im sure the deniers will find a way....i mean at the core of denial is a kind of absolute belief in a constant, a belief in what has always been...perhaps its just the word "change" that's the problem for the deniers?


----------



## rumpole (19 May 2012)

I would say that deniers of change believe what they want to believe, and that no amount of facts will change their opinions. OTOH , why would people WANT to believe in  climate change and all the associated problems it brings unless there was convincing evidence to show it was true ? Just using that logic should indicate that deniers are unwilling to look at the evidence, probably lazy and don't want to make an effort if they can't see an immediate return for themselves.

I don't mind genuine sceptics though, if they are prepared to look at the evidence impartially. That's probably the way most proponents of CC started out, they didn't want to believe it, but the evidence was there.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Pretty hard to argue against that kind of logic.
> 
> But im sure the deniers will find a way....i mean at the core of denial is a kind of absolute belief in a constant, a belief in what has always been...perhaps its just the word "change" that's the problem for the deniers?




The weather has not changed in Townsville despite all this alarmism, over the last twenty years.

It is not denialism of a universal truth, it is scepticism about a crowd of jokers who believe they can predict the future.

So far their predictions have been way out.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (19 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The weather has not changed in Townsville despite all this alarmism, over the last twenty years.
> 
> It is not denialism of a universal truth, it is scepticism about a crowd of jokers who believe they can predict the future.
> 
> ...




And yet 97% of aircraft engineers are saying this particular aircraft has some potentially serious deficiencies....i suppose GG's comment could  translate to...until it crashes there's not a problem, hasn't crashed in Townsville so Townsville hasn't got a problem.

Therefore everything's fine...carry on folks.


----------



## odds-on (19 May 2012)

awg said:


> I did hear a relevant analogy recently.
> 
> I dont know what a Climate Scientist is, however, one would assume they would be highly qualified at a degree level in mainstream Earth Science, and probably across more than one discipline, ie knowledgeable on there profession.
> 
> ...




Ask yourself some questions about aircraft engineering:-

1. How long has aircraft engineering as a discipline been around?
2. How many billions dollars of engineering time has been spent developing aircraft engineering standards?
3. How many total hours have all the aircraft in the world been flying?
4. What is the impact if the aircraft engineers make the wrong call?

Ask yourself the same questions about Climate Science. I guess that not even 10%(???) of the man hours and dollars has been spent on aircraft engineering has been spent on climate science. I would not put the profession in the same camp as aircraft engineering. No disrespect to them, I see them more like macroeconomists - data models, statistics, forecasting etc. Difficult to say whether they are right or wrong as the "system" they analyse is incredibly complex.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 May 2012)

Heard some good news news on the Science Show - Radio National today.

Solar power prices have been dropping extremely rapidly, 70% then 40% and renewable sources have taken over as the main % of new power. Over 50%!!
Also a mechanism for making hydrogen at normal temperatures using a catalyst has been invented for the future hydrogen fuel cell engines. 

Also USA car use among youth in the USA has dropped 40%. Baby boomers use hasn't changed.

The world is undergoing massive change.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 May 2012)

Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?

Getting back to the heading of the thread.

Scientists should respond by burning the deniers at the stake, just like the "scientists" of the Middle Ages did with heretics.

This is basically a form of fascism. 

The warmers say : Agree with us, about the future, or we will destroy you.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank (19 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> The world is undergoing massive change.




Yes, I have heard this too.  Akin to the industrial revolution, mostly privately funded new energy technologies.  We rarely hear about the new advances until something is commercially viable on a massive scale.  It's like the mid 80's with the internet.  By the time the mid 90's came around, people wondered how it happened overnight!  In 10 years time the World will be enormously different in terms of power generation.  

The wealthier Euro countries are miles ahead of us.  But I guess we have to play to our strengths, which is digging stuff out of the ground and selling it to the ching chongs.


----------



## rumpole (19 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The warmers say : Agree with us, about the future, or we will destroy you.
> 
> gg




I think that may be a teensy bit extreme


----------



## medicowallet (19 May 2012)

awg said:


> I did hear a relevant analogy recently.
> 
> I dont know what a Climate Scientist is, however, one would assume they would be highly qualified at a degree level in mainstream Earth Science, and probably across more than one discipline, ie knowledgeable on there profession.
> 
> ...




If those 97 engineers were employed by the maintenence company, and their very livelihood depended on repairing this particular plane, or their company would go broke,

AND

over the past 15 years, they were assuring everyone, on every other flight that they were going to crash, and all flights were safe,

AND 

historically, with the ageing of planes, planes were crashing anyway,

Then, I would actually like to get a second opinion, one which lines up with the facts, before totally banning planes, and making people swim across the atlantic, as plane flights had become too dangerous....


Just putting it into current context.. 

MW


----------



## Glen48 (19 May 2012)

I read were the Sun and Earth are not in a perfect orbit so the Sun moves closer to Mother earth which maybe be the case so we could have GW but we are looking in the wrong place,,


----------



## sails (19 May 2012)

Who pays the 97%?  Would they lose their jobs/funding if they didn't sprout what they had been told to sprout?

Isn't their "findings" being used an excuse for a whopping tax?

Isn't it possible there is a whopping conflict of interest?


The link below is by Garth Paltridge who is a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), University of Tasmania. In his career, he worked as an atmospheric physicist, predominantly with CSIRO and briefly with NOAA , and has published more than 100 books and scientific papers. He published “The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming“ in 2009.

He explains how government funding works for climate science:


http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Garth Paltridge on the consensus.pdf


----------



## So_Cynical (19 May 2012)

sails said:


> The link below is by Garth Paltridge who is a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), University of Tasmania. In his career, he worked as an atmospheric physicist, predominantly with CSIRO and briefly with NOAA , and has published more than 100 books and scientific papers. He published “The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming“ in 2009.
> 
> He explains how government funding works for climate science:
> 
> ...




An Amazon search for 'climate change' produces 60,887 Results...a search for 'climate denial' produces 272 Results and a search for 'climate change denial' 290 Results.


----------



## awg (19 May 2012)

well that flushed out a few deniars.

On what realistic basis could I examine the expertise of engineers, doctors or scientists ( or economists) ?  
I do not have sufficient expertise. 

I am required to decide based on what I am told (or ignore the issue)

The consensus is probability.

It is simply impossible for the layman to test the veracity of climate change models, one must rely upon the bona fides of the scientists

I have no doubt that some scientists are paid indirectly by anti-climate change
organisations, others may be biased the other way (both are accused)

I find it peculiar they are vilified, like I said if 97, or even 90% of engineers or Doctors were in general agreeance ?


----------



## basilio (19 May 2012)

I think you are jumping to a few quick conclusions here.  For some reason Wayne and others assumed  the paper was about climate change denial.  

Not true.  It's main brief, when you read it, was looking at the *processes by which people denied evidence *around the links between cigarette smoking and cancers, cause of AIDS etc.  

By the way Gringotts I was really taken by your discussion on how we can  change reality by simply imaging new possibilities. Very New Age. I'm keep it in mind if/when my badly serviced plane  goes into a terminal dive . 

I also remember a particularly good paper which explored the capacity of social scientists to re integrate the effects of gravity according to the social constructs present with the observer. Something along the lines of not having to view climate change I think..


----------



## medicowallet (19 May 2012)

awg said:


> well that flushed out a few deniars.
> 
> On what realistic basis could I examine the expertise of engineers, doctors or scientists ( or economists) ?
> I do not have sufficient expertise.
> ...




Of course if 97% agreed 

AND there was no conflict of interest

AND the hypothesis was proven and not disproved.

Unfortunately man made dangerous global warming does NOT fulfil this criteria..  unless, you have not actually read or understood the science that is.

Most man made dangerous global warming "believers" are either hippies or under educated.

MW


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2012)

basilio said:


> I think you are jumping to a few quick conclusions here.  For some reason Wayne and others assumed  the paper was about climate change denial.
> 
> Not true.  It's main brief, when you read it, was looking at the *processes by which people denied evidence *around the links between cigarette smoking and cancers, cause of AIDS etc.
> 
> ...




Oh come on basilio.

The term 'denier' has only been used for Holocaust denial previous to the Fabian alarmists, having found the science wanting and subject to credible challenge, resorted to the appalling ad hom term 'denier'. The implication is obvious.

I tell you what, any disgraceful low life that says that to my face... it will be on for young and old.


----------



## awg (19 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> Most man made dangerous global warming "believers" are either hippies or under educated.
> 
> MW




Is that hypothesis backed by scientific evidence :

Interesting topic, denialism, plenty of research about on that one.

There is huge evidence for non-human related climate change (if any scientist is to be believed, although other persons insist the world started in 4000BC etc)

Based upon the knowledge of Science that I do have, I personally have formed the view that human induced climate change/environmental damage is a problem that will manifest profoundly within the lifetime of myself and my children.

Am slightly puzzled about how people come to a different conclusion..but hey!..hope its me thats wrong.. (them climate-change scientist d!ckheads too )


----------



## awg (19 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> The term 'denier' has only been used for Holocaust denial previous to the Fabian alarmists, having found the science wanting and subject to credible challenge, resorted to the appalling ad hom term 'denier'. The implication is obvious.




It had not occured to me that by me using that term, I may offend in that way, although it possibly should have. 

So therefore I would offer an apology for unintended offence if it was taken.

Is it 100% correct that the term has only been previously and exclusivly associated with Holocaust deniars ?

I have an inking the term may have been well used, including references to an Armenian situation in modern day Turkey, that took place prior to WWII


----------



## So_Cynical (19 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> I tell you what, any disgraceful low life that says that to my face... it will be on for young and old.




Kinda reminds me of.
~


----------



## medicowallet (19 May 2012)

awg said:


> Is that hypothesis backed by scientific evidence :
> 
> Interesting topic, denialism, plenty of research about on that one.
> 
> ...




I guess this evidence also supported considerable change over the past 15 years?

Are you also a believer in the need of desalination plants?

Perhaps you also believe that cyclones have become more powerful or more prevalent?

The scientific argument that CO2 is driving dangerous global warming has been disproven so-far, and emphatically so, by the test of time.

In your opinion, regarding fudged-up computer models, how many more years of inaccuracy are required to disprove this error-ridden hypothesis.

Or do you support "scientists" continuously moving the goalposts as their old rulebooks are disproven. Smells of desperate denial of failure to me.

MW

edit: not arguing against the environment being protected.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Kinda reminds me of.
> ~




Haha!

Hoist by your own petard there SC.

It is the warmists who publicly threaten people with death and incarceration. Remember 10/10?

What a hypocrite.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Oh come on basilio.
> 
> The term 'denier' has only been used for Holocaust denial previous to the Fabian alarmists, having found the science wanting and subject to credible challenge, resorted to the appalling ad hom term 'denier'. The implication is obvious.
> 
> I tell you what, any disgraceful low life that says that to my face... it will be on for young and old.






awg said:


> It had not occured to me that by me using that term, I may offend in that way, although it possibly should have.
> 
> So therefore I would offer an apology for unintended offence if it was taken.



Glad to have that, awg.  I also find it immensely offensive, especially as the term seems to be applied to everyone who is agnostic about the topic.
I don't have the background to properly evaluate the claims by both sides in this fraught argument, but have found I've been labelled as a "denier" simply because I won't embrace the "I'm a believer" mantra.

When you have people like Flannery seeming to sell his comments to whomever is paying him, I don't know how anyone can respect him and others of his ilk.

It's also notable that these various disasters are always, always embraced by the Left, that the solution is a tax of some sort which effectively acts as a redistribution of wealth, and certainly in the case of the carbon tax, does nothing for the supposed target but massively disadvantages business.

That's always the aim of the Left.  To take money from those who have figured out how to make it and hand it out to those who prefer to sit back passively and hope someone will pay them to merely exist.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 May 2012)

Denier means what it says.
Skeptic means what it says.
There's been a lot of spin put on these words like relating it to the holocost, 
It's just another form of attack.  Basically a lot of tosh! 

Garpel should know it is the conservatives that have killed scientists over the centuries for suggesting things they didn't agree with, not the other way around. Another false argument spread by special interest groups.

What I am happy about is that young people are taught how to see how they are getting "framed" in school and are far more aware of the Orwellian nature and attempts at perverting their thinking.

Denier hits home, that's why it is hated.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 May 2012)

Julia said:


> that *the solution* is a tax of some sort which effectively acts as a redistribution of wealth, and certainly in the case of the carbon tax, does nothing for the supposed target but massively disadvantages business.




Its not a solution...and i seriously doubt you or anyone else can provide evidence that this was ever stated by a Govt authority....the tax is a mechanism to fund green power initiatives, like development of technologies and actual generation.

The sort of things that *have not *and *are not funded* by the incumbents.



Knobby22 said:


> Denier means what it says.
> Skeptic means what it says.
> There's been a lot of spin put on these words like relating it to the holocost,
> It's just another form of attack.  Basically a lot of tosh!
> ...




Agreed...its simple, incisive and to the point...lets call a spade a spade.

And if your offended by the word denier...then harden the F up...seriously.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Agreed...its simple, incisive and to the point...lets call a spade a spade.
> 
> And if your offended by the word denier...then harden the F up...seriously.





That is if, and it is a big if, you are right and I am wrong.

It has religious overtones which I cannot come at, next you will make me wear a token on my Akubra signifying my disagreement with you.

It is in a word, over the top, and signifies a person's need to be correct and impose their view on the majority.

gg


----------



## sails (19 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> ...Agreed...its simple, incisive and to the point...lets call a spade a spade.
> 
> And if your offended by the word denier...then harden the F up...seriously.





Calling others "deniers" makes you guys look like you are part of a cult.  Does your cause no good whatsoever...

Yeah, let's call a spade a spade.  

And if your message is so good, why do you need to resort to name calling?


----------



## So_Cynical (20 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has religious overtones which I cannot come at, next you will make me wear a token on my Akubra signifying my disagreement with you.
> 
> It is in a word, over the top, and signifies a person's need to be correct and impose their view on the majority.
> 
> gg






sails said:


> Calling others "deniers" makes you guys look like you are part of a cult.  Does your cause no good whatsoever...
> 
> Yeah, let's call a spade a spade.
> 
> And if your message is so good, why do you need to resort to name calling?




Name calling? religious overtones? a cult? WTF

Its a word that implies that some people are in denial of a truth or reality...its the perfect tag.


----------



## sails (20 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Name calling? religious overtones? a cult? WTF
> 
> Its a word that implies that some people are in denial of a truth or reality...its the perfect tag.





LOL - up to you if you want to be sprout a message that needs name calling to support it.  Bully tactics.

In any case, if 97% of scientists are correct, then why are their predictions failing?  It's not helping your cause any more than your name calling.

If scientists have failed so far in their predictions, why should we believe any more?   

Deniers is incorrect.  Realists is more like it...


----------



## sails (20 May 2012)

The majority of scientists don't always get it right. 

 Back in the mid 1900s, most scientists believed that there was no further brain plasticity once adulthood was reached.  However, one scientist dared to disagree.  He was right and it is now accepted as such.

Read the book "The Brain that Changes Itself" by Dr. Norman Doidge.  Fascinating reading and gives hope to people who would otherwise be told there is no hope for the brain to repair itself.

Much of science is based on theory or hypothesis.  It can never be fact until time has passed and the theory/hypothesis has actually been proved.  This has not happened with climate "science" and it appears that the theory/hypothesis of AGW is not passing the fact test.

Some common sense can go a long way...lol


----------



## basilio (20 May 2012)

*How many people on this thread actually clicked the link and read the paper ????*

The paper was focused on the process of denial of evidence and the capacity of people to be misinformed. 

The examples used in the discussion were taken largely from the Tobacco Industry and a little from the the AIDS debate.  The Climate Change issue  was not discussed.

I posted the paper to see if anyone wanted to discuss the particular denial processes that were described. Any takers ?


----------



## So_Cynical (20 May 2012)

basilio said:


> *How many people on this thread actually clicked the link and read the paper ????*




Ok i must admit that i only read the paper 5 minutes ago (due to your post) and as i thought...i didn't need to read the paper because it offered nothing new to me, just things i already knew or detail i assumed.


----------



## wayneL (20 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Its a word that implies that some people are in denial of a truth or reality...its the perfect tag.




If people are denying a 'truth' or 'reality' it would be a perfect tag, such as denying the Holocaust happened. Well it did happen! There may be some debate about exact numbers, the evidence is irrevocable.

However catastrophic global anthropogenic climate change is not a truth or reality, it is a hypothesis reliant on highly subjective observations and models that have so far failed to predict anything. 

NOBODY knows how much of the actual *unadjusted* and untampered with observations are natural and how much are human induced.

We don't even unequivocally know the exact anthropogenic factors are responsible and in what proportion... co2, land use change, soot/aerosols etc.

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs and hypotheses, the most sensible of which reside somewhere in the moderate middle, the so called lukewarmers. I mean Judith Curry and the Rogers have been called deniers too FFS.

There are a whole bunch of political and financial agendas mixed in on both sides of the equation.

Therefore 'denial' is a totally inappropriate tag as there is nothing unequivocal to deny.

That is why it is such an utterly offensive word in this circumstance and you guys who use it deserve a slap in the face with a wet fish.


----------



## macca (20 May 2012)

I have read the opening attachment and I am not really sure what it is trying to say, TBH.

On one hand it talks of stacking the argument to create a false impression as being bad and yet it uses the IPCC as being an example of a victim. I note that the article was written 2009 and time has since proven that the IPCC was wrong, exactly as forecast by the so called deniers. So wrong in fact that the IPCC has had to admit that the climate is not changing as modelled 

I have found that on average, most skeptics are older than those who have embraced the current generational fear campaign, because they are older they have witnessed similar campaigns of fear before. As is common, each generation likes to look for something different to embrace and protest about from the previous generation.

Here in Oz some people have this misguided belief that our actions actually matter to the world, sorry, but they don't ! Until such times as the Northern hemisphere manufacturers cease pumping out pollution there will be no changes in any effect that mankind is having on the environment.

All I can see is our children and grandchildren are being brainwashed and frightened by the very teachers they need to trust and a huge debt being incurred for them to pay back.


----------



## moXJO (20 May 2012)

Hard to deny there is a lot of spin in the air. And this is one instance. If the facts were so clear relating to CC then don't muddy the waters with bs. But that's not the case we seem to get scare campaigns, dodgy numbers and out right lies from both sides, so it is hard to form an opinion one way or the other.



> THE accuracy of the ABC's reporting on climate change has been called into question by an activist who uncovered documentary evidence that undermines one of the national broadcaster's most sensational reports on the subject.
> 
> Climate change blogger Simon Turnill told The Weekend Australian the contents of 11 emails he uncovered using the Freedom of Information Act were at odds with last year's ABC report that death threats had been made against climate scientists at the Australian National University.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-climate-death-threats-reports-undermined/story-e6frg996-1226360656074


----------



## Glen48 (20 May 2012)

Do you mean wet fush WL?

Commonsense tells you putting any sort of pollution into your lungs is not what nature wanted,people in poor countries who use wood fires indoors get lung cancer etc and the push is on to use smoke free pellets, smoking and cancer is all about money the CEO of R J Reynolds  sent his private jet to pick up his dog how many cancer stick would that take to pay for the trip.
Every thing is about money, ego, money.power and money besides once the depression starts we will have less power consumption,less cars/ trucks on the road, less industry  which will give us our reduction in all those things claimed to cause GW and more smokers sitting around giving us population reduction.   
Ever one has their price it's just a matter of how much to sell your soul and swap sides.  
Drug dealers when pulled over by police kept offering money to the copper until he let them go didn't matter if it was 1k or 100's.
So we have to guess who is tell the truth with what information we have and if the Feds can keep the local's happy they are not going to ask questions.


----------



## cynic (20 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Came across an interesting paper in a Public Health journal which explored the issue of misinformation.
> 
> Worth a read.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link Bas. Yes! Another fine example of subjectivity from select members of academia whom deem it necessary to allow their opinions to influence their findings. 

If that paper truly defines denialism, then I am proud to declare myself as a denier!

For those whom were wise enough not to invest their time reading the aforementioned "paper", a small excerpt follows:



> The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are.




I believe we can all recognise how the abovementioned approach to debate, can readily break down into an: "I am right! Therefore you are wrong/inferior/dysfunctional!" 
type of argument(hardly conducive to objective discovery).

Thanks again Bas. for making yet another fine contribution to the argument against AGW.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 May 2012)

Who cares? GW either is or isnt happening WITHOUT human influence same as it has done millions of year bofore-hand


----------



## cynic (20 May 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Who cares? GW either is or isnt happening WITHOUT human influence same as it has done millions of year bofore-hand




+1

I believe it is happening in accordance with the natural evolutionary processes. Mankind (and accompanying technology) is currently an essential part of this natural process.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Who cares? GW either is or isnt happening WITHOUT human influence same as it has done millions of year bofore-hand



 We care because the spin is resulting in an unnecessary and damaging tax on an economy already under stress.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2012)

I can understand why many posters have jumped up to defend their views on climate change. But as I repeated the paper I quoted did not discuss CC as any particular example of denialism. It focused on the arguments used by the tobacco industry over 60 years to preserve their capacity to market cigarettes without reference to health effects.

Cynic  hit the nail with his quote from the paper on how  a science approach would look at the arguments used to defend or promote a position. 


> The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are.




When you go back to the paper as whole  they dissect the arguments used by the tobacco industry and it becomes clear they never looked as the whole evidence, they used deliberate distortions and logic was not their strong suit...

Wayne suggested that the use of the word denier with regard to the holocaust was quite appropriate 



> If people are denying a 'truth' or 'reality' it would be a perfect tag, such as denying the Holocaust happened. Well it did happen! There may be some debate about exact numbers, the evidence is irrevocable




But the whole point about that debate as I saw it was that a significant body of work was created by some historians and interest groups to deny the reality of the Holocaust.  This was done under the name of freedom of speech until finally governments decided the construction  of outright lies or the distortion of evidence that caused serious harm to people was not acceptable and acted accordingly.

If we go back to the Tobacco industry issue we can see a fair comparison. Again a deliberate distortion of facts and a  construction of lies that would allow people to be hurt by tobacco related illnesses. Perhaps the right word in these cases are criminal lies rather than the "nicer" term denial.

I can see a concern about using the word "denier " loosely.  It can be an cheap way to dismiss an opposing point of view and as Wayne suggests associate the arguer with Holocaust denial. That is why the discussion in the paper was focused on the balance and quality of evidence and logic.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2012)

Another thought.

What would be your thoughts about the attitude of the Poker machine industry to the question that their machines were designed to  create addictive behaviors in players and extract as much money as possible from them ? 

Do you think it would be an act of denial on their part to say the machines were *not *designed to be addictive and that they were *not* trying to empty peoples pockets ? Is simply depending their economic interest a sufficient reason to promote a dangerous product ?

Ideas ?


----------



## sails (20 May 2012)

moXJO said:


> Hard to deny there is a lot of spin in the air. And this is one instance. If the facts were so clear relating to CC then don't muddy the waters with bs. But that's not the case we seem to get scare campaigns, dodgy numbers and out right lies from both sides, so it is hard to form an opinion one way or the other.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-climate-death-threats-reports-undermined/story-e6frg996-1226360656074




Agree moXJO - there are many things that are creating doubts in the minds of people.  Healthy questioning is not denying reality.

If I told you the earth was flat, sure I would be denying reality.  However, climate science does not offer anything so concrete.  Their failed predictions are causing many to question just how much of this so called "science" is actually science and how much is politically based propaganda.

This was posted some time ago, but probably worth another mention.  It confirms the article link I posted from Aussie scientist Garth Paltridge.  It does question how much scientists are expected to promote co2 regardless of their actual findings.

Australian physicist Professor Brian J O'Brien who was closely involved in the Apollo moon missions speaks out on global warming the last part of this interview (from about the 45 minute mark) he speaks out on global warming:

From the ABC: ABC interview with Brian J O'Brien

And a few snippets of the interview from Bolt's Blog (not Bolt's opinion):



> " It's "certainly not proven" that man is largely to blame for any warming.
> 
> - An Australian professor of physics told him he.... had to keep his team of 65 researchers going with work, and "the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or whereever".
> 
> - “For 20 years people have been indoctrinated with the abuse of language” so that “climate change” is meant to suggest that all change is man-made. Of course, there’s climate change. That’s not the question "




Read more here:professor speaks out: money has corrupted our global warming debate

Interesting.  Seems plenty of funding for scientists for AGW believers.  Surely, there is clear potential conflict of interest for scientists receiving government funding on political matters.





Here is the link again for Garth's article:
http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Garth Paltridge on the consensus.pdf


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Is simply depending their economic interest a sufficient reason to promote a dangerous product ?
> 
> Ideas ?




I'm sure that those whose livelihood depend on selling dangerous products like liquor , tobacco and gambling would tell the public anything they could that sounds plausible to defend their business, whether they actually believed it or not.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I'm sure that those whose livelihood depend on selling dangerous products like liquor , tobacco and gambling would tell the public anything they could that sounds plausible to defend their business, whether they actually believed it or not.




I agree. There is little doubt that the alarmists know they are selling a dangerous product.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> If people are denying a 'truth' or 'reality' it would be a perfect tag, such as denying the Holocaust happened. Well it did happen! There may be some debate about exact numbers, the evidence is irrevocable.
> 
> However catastrophic global anthropogenic climate change is not a truth or reality, it is a hypothesis reliant on highly subjective observations and models that have so far failed to predict anything.




The Holocaust was a series of events that happened over a 5 year period, roughly 1940 to 1945 (from memory) ~  man made global warming and associated climate change has been going on since (arguably) the end of WW2 and will continue for a century or more.

Stupid comparison i know but on a time line basis for GW its early 1941, Auschwitz is just a little former polish military camp with no prisoners....i suppose for any big series of events that happen in slow motion its easier for information to flow and for vested interests to gear up and get their message out.



macca said:


> I have read the opening attachment and I am not really sure what it is trying to say, TBH.
> 
> On one hand it talks of stacking the argument to create a false impression as being bad and yet it uses the IPCC as being an example of a victim. I note that the article was written 2009 and time has since proven that the IPCC was wrong, exactly as forecast by the so called deniers. So wrong in fact that the *IPCC has had to admit that the climate is not changing as modelled*




Wrong...the IPCC was wrong??? or the modelling has not proved to be 100% accurate...notice the use of the word MODEL and what it imply's.



			
				wiki link said:
			
		

> A computer simulation, a computer model, or a computational model is a computer program, or network of computers, that *attempts to simulate* an abstract model of a particular system.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulation


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Another thought.
> 
> What would be your thoughts about the attitude of the Poker machine industry to the question that their machines were designed to  create addictive behaviors in players and extract as much money as possible from them ?
> 
> ...



If you're intending this as an analogy with regard to belief in AGW or otherwise, I don't think it's really valid.

People have the opportunity to exercise personal responsibility and free will when it comes to using poker machines.  We have not been given the same freedom of choice when it comes to the carbon tax.

I don't give a stuff about poker machines one way or the other.  I've never used them and have no interest.  But I know plenty of people who do use them for recreation and are not addicted.  So the argument seems pretty shonky imo.
If they were oh so dreadfully dangerous, you'd imagine everyone using them would have a problem.  They don't.

Sure, some people do.  But those same people will likely have addictive tendencies in various other aspects of their lives also.

My own argument here could well be unfairly influenced by my total hatred of the increasing interference in people's lives by the nanny state.  If the decisions declaring what is good for us and otherwise continue at this exponential rate, in a couple of generations we will become dependent automatons, incapable of thinking for ourselves.
Rant over, with apologies.


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> My own argument here could well be unfairly influenced by my total hatred of the increasing interference in people's lives by the nanny state.  If the decisions declaring what is good for us and otherwise continue at this exponential rate, in a couple of generations we will become dependent automatons, incapable of thinking for ourselves.
> Rant over, with apologies.




No need to apologise, you have a valid viewpoint. Would you agree that it is a matter of degree how far the government intervenes that is at question ? Let's face it, a small number of irresponsible people can cause the majority of us a great deal of hardship, as evidenced by such things as alcohol fuelled violence and road accidents, lung cancers from cigarette smoking and other cancers from alcohol abuse and obesity.

 If you add up the effect on the health bill we are all paying for these abuses one way or the other, even if we are not run over or mugged on the street by drunken yobs. Do we just accept the fact that these things will happen and clean up the mess afterwards with everyone's money, or transfer the price of the abuse onto the abusers, e.g. by increasing cigarette and alcohol prices , and try and prevent the abuse instead of it leaving wreckage behind for others to clean up ?

 The principle of insurance  is that those at most risk of liability (physical, financial etc) should pay the most in premiums. Then the rest of us could have ours reduced. 

Would you agree ?


That's my rant over.


----------



## awg (20 May 2012)

On the topic of denialism, and whether the word itself is insulting,
it seems to have come into usage in the context of "god-deniers" as well.

The word is used with invective by one side, but it seems to have been proudly adopted by Dawkins, for instance.

In my younger day, I would have classified myself as a God denier, as I strongly did not believe in God, based on scientific evidence. These days, it would be correct to "label" myself as a God "skeptic", because, although I still do not believe, I cannot disprove Gods existence, and accept that I might be wrong.

I wouldnt feel insulted if labelled a God denier though.

Is it vastly different?...one could say that there is (*some* {insert term of own choice here} scientific evidence for humanGW, and not much really for God


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 May 2012)

Denialist
Unbeliever
Heretic
Black
White
Christian
Jew
Muslim

It depends on how any of the words above are said, and who is saying it, and what self righteousness is in their voice, and what madness is stirring society at that particular time.

Be careful with words and the context in which you use them.

gg


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> No need to apologise, you have a valid viewpoint. Would you agree that it is a matter of degree how far the government intervenes that is at question ? Let's face it, a small number of irresponsible people can cause the majority of us a great deal of hardship, as evidenced by such things as alcohol fuelled violence and road accidents, lung cancers from cigarette smoking and other cancers from alcohol abuse and obesity.
> 
> If you add up the effect on the health bill we are all paying for these abuses one way or the other, even if we are not run over or mugged on the street by drunken yobs. Do we just accept the fact that these things will happen and clean up the mess afterwards with everyone's money, or transfer the price of the abuse onto the abusers, e.g. by increasing cigarette and alcohol prices , and try and prevent the abuse instead of it leaving wreckage behind for others to clean up ?



To be honest, I'm not sure.  My thinking on this swings.  I'm all for people individually taking responsibility but in a practical sense I don't see how it could work for, say,
a drunk being held financially and in every other sense responsible for causing a road accident.   

Let's assume the drunk had no capacity to pay for the care of anyone he injures. (very likely).  What happens then?

The taxes on cigarettes more than pay for the healthcare expended on smoking related diseases as I understand it, so that seems reasonable enough.

I just don't know where you would draw the line if undertaking an 'individual responsiblity for everything approach'.  You'd have e.g. the situation of someone with diabetes, probably lifestyle induced.  Are you going to withhold treatment from such a patient?

Or the drug addict who is seeking rehab.  Are we going to say, 'tough luck, baby, you did the drugs, you caused your problem, no help from the taxpayer'?

Is that the sort of society we really want?
Part of me likes the idea of not nursing people along when they fail to take responsibility as much as possible for their own health and financial outcomes, but I can see massive flaws in such an approach, such that would render our society the poorer.

I might be quite wrong.  Would be interested in the views of others.




> The principle of insurance  is that those at most risk of liability (physical, financial etc) should pay the most in premiums. Then the rest of us could have ours reduced.



An example of this occurred recently when Suncorp declined to write any new insurance over properties in a couple of flood prone Qld towns.  Suncorp explained that this was to prevent overall rises across their customer base becoming unreasonable.  Made absolute sense to me but there was a huge outcry against Suncorp.


----------



## Glen48 (20 May 2012)

Guess it depends on what sort of society you want to live in my day ( damn i said it ) pubs closed at 10 as well as bottle shops people were not as mobile and were taught to accept responsibly.

But if by some bad luck nature gives you a hole in the heart should you pay or expect the general public to foot the bill. 
 Who will decide on who should pay what and if the damage is done do you say bad luck and park them in a corner. 
 We have been conditioned to accept the feds should look after us  and I suggest most people think the feds are like some big multi national not a bunch of freeloading scammers.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 May 2012)

Agree Julia and Glen.

Just like Funeral Insurance.

Who needs it.

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 May 2012)

I love all the butthurt from global warming deniers. You so craaaazy 

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45829669#45829669


----------



## cynic (21 May 2012)

basilio said:


> *How many people on this thread actually clicked the link and read the paper ????*
> 
> The paper was focused on the process of denial of evidence and the capacity of people to be misinformed.
> 
> ...






basilio said:


> I can understand why many posters have jumped up to defend their views on climate change. But as I repeated the paper I quoted did not discuss CC as any particular example of denialism.




Bas. did you actually click the link and read the paper???

The undermentioned quotes are two excerpts from aforesaid paper (I've taken the liberty of bolding the parts that cite climate change amongst purported examples of denial):



> HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. *And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media. The consequences of policies based on views such as these can be fatal.*






> *The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have suffered similar attacks from commentators *with links to major oil companies. All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus,
> convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health. This phenomenon has led some to draw a historical parallel with the holocaust, another area where the evidence is overwhelming but where a few commentators have continued to sow doubt. All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.




The Trojan horse technique is one of the oldest tricks in the book! (It's been used for ages before I was even born!). 

Do you really believe that skeptics won't recognise the true motivation behind the production of this paper?


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I love all the butthurt from global warming deniers. You so craaaazy
> 
> http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45829669#45829669




Apart from being uncouth, you are gullible and naive. Please go back to school, learn about the scientific method and examine this issue again.

This is basic stuff SCM.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> The taxes on cigarettes more than pay for the healthcare expended on smoking related diseases as I understand it, so that seems reasonable enough.




Not according to this:

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20092110-20052.html


----------



## Logique (21 May 2012)

It's just more coolaid. More straw men. 

Flat earth, creationism, lung cancer, pick any issue and place yourself on the historically correct side of it. By definition this makes the contrary view wrong, and in 'denial'.  

It's a strategy that assumes a gullible target audience.


----------



## basilio (21 May 2012)

In the whole thread here (not to mention many others on ASF) not a single person has looked at the examples of false arguments, misrepresentations or diversionary tactics used by people trying to support dangerous products and attempted to justify or explain them.

The paper cited the tobacco industry as a prime example.

Nuff said.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

basilio said:


> In the whole thread here (not to mention many others on ASF) not a single person has looked at the examples of false arguments, misrepresentations or diversionary tactics used by people trying to support dangerous products and attempted to justify or explain them.
> 
> The paper cited the tobacco industry as a prime example.
> 
> Nuff said.




It's frustrating  when people get so off track isn't it ?



I promise I'll read the article

Soon


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

I don't think the word 'denial' should be used.  'Denial' implies the denier knows the truth but can't handle it, whereas he may simply be in disagreement.

Let's call it the 'pro' and 'anti' sides of the debate.  On the 'anti' side, there may be some who are so afraid of the implications that they are in denial, and some who are simply in disagreement.  I suspect there are more in the disagreement camp, but you never know.  I've spoken with people who haven't read any of the literature on climate change and yet are adamant it's a tax manoeuver conspiracy by all the world governments.


----------



## sails (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I don't think the word 'denial' should be used.  'Denial' implies the denier knows the truth but can't handle it, whereas he may simply be in disagreement.
> 
> Let's call it the 'pro' and 'anti' sides of the debate.  On the 'anti' side, there may be some who are so afraid of the implications that they are in denial, and some who are simply in disagreement.  I suspect there are more in the disagreement camp, but you never know.  I've spoken with people who haven't read any of the literature on climate change and yet are adamant it's a tax manoeuver conspiracy by all the world governments.




Yay, I agree with you, GB - well said...

And, why aren't those who deny that co2 is a natural part of photosynthesis and deny that climate continues to follow the same patterns it has historically also called "deniers"???

When Flannery was running around stating no more dam filling rains in Qld a few years ago and yet many farmers understood natural cycles and believed the drought would break as it always has, he was clearly wrong.  Should he be called a denier of nature?

Either this word should be banned, or it should be used freely by both sides of the debate.

But then both sides of this debate honestly believe what they believe, so they are not denying anything.  On that basis, neither is a denier.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

First time for everything sails!

I don't take one side or the other because I just haven't studied it nearly enough.  All I've done is read a few newspaper articles.  It's not a big issue for me.

But I do have a question for the anti side:  How is it that all the world governments have agreed that global warming is a man made phenomenon?  For me it's hard to imagine that they have all been led astray by the available reseach.  Considering the cost and upheaval it causes, surely they would have done some investigating of their own?  They can hire all the renowned scientists they need to analyze this objectively, and yet they have all come to the same conclusion?


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

basilio said:


> In the whole thread here (not to mention many others on ASF) not a single person has looked at the examples of false arguments, misrepresentations or diversionary tactics used by people trying to support dangerous products and attempted to justify or explain them.
> 
> The paper cited the tobacco industry as a prime example.
> 
> Nuff said.




All due to pecuniary interests...

...and where do the vast majority of pecuniary interests lie in the AGW debate? Despite the laughable claims of big oil money, most of it is for pro CAGW outcomes.

Great point bassa.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Apart from being uncouth, you are gullible and naive. Please go back to school, learn about the scientific method and examine this issue again.
> 
> This is basic stuff SCM.




With those sorts of retorts, you wonder why the scientific community does not think highly of you.


----------



## awg (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I don't think the word 'denial' should be used.  'Denial' implies the denier knows the truth but can't handle it, whereas he may simply be in disagreement.
> .






sails said:


> Either this word should be banned, or it should be used freely by both sides of the debate.




Just saw it used in the ASF Property Price thread...that means its a proper word now

I think the main reason there has been a lack emphasis on fudges, half-truths etc etc, is that imo both sides of this debate have indulged heartily, like politics (not directed at ASF posters).

I just take that as a given.

As an aside, I havent bothered indulging in the CC thread on ASF, except once, I said I was glad my property near the ocean was at reasonable altitude, didnt say why, but got sneered.

My council has just released there CC modelled Land Plan, and it turns out thousands of properties are on it...this has led to a substantial drop in value for them. 
(Including actual drops in sale value)

There is outrage and resistance. The guy leading the backlash is as big a climate change skeptic as you would ever meet...owns millions in waterfront property to.

The council has a Green tinge.

I tell my kid to turn off the 3-phase A/C instead of getting round in undies and wifebeater


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> With those sorts of retorts, you wonder why the scientific community does not think highly of you.




Oh please! That was not a retort, it was drawing attention to your shortcomings in analysis.

You have no idea what the scientific community think of me or anyone else. The pseudo scientific leftist political community is another matter.

In fact in my field I am well respected and am often consulted by Massey Uni on matters of equine lower limb pathology.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Oh please! That was not a retort, it was drawing attention to your shortcomings in analysis.




I didn't post any analysis, I merely linked to a story about the Siberian permafrost (which has been there forever untouched by climate) melting, and releasing a lot of methane in the process.

But I guess it's just another one of the many things "not happening" according to the science sceptics. I'm guessing you lot think it's CGI done by the liberal Hollywood producers or something.


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I didn't post any analysis, I merely linked to a story about the Siberian permafrost (which has been there forever untouched by climate) melting, and releasing a lot of methane in the process.
> 
> But I guess it's just another one of the many things "not happening" according to the science sceptics. I'm guessing you lot think it's CGI done by the liberal Hollywood producers or something.




There is always more than what meets the eye Grasshopper. Your willingness to accept the clip uncritically on face value shows your naivete and gullibility.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> There is always more than what meets the eye Grasshopper. Your willingness to accept the clip uncritically on face value shows your naivete and gullibility.




Your mistake is to assume that clip is the only thing I have ever heard or seen about the melting of the Siberian permafrost. That and to not provide any kind of "alternative explanation" for it.


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Your mistake is to assume that clip is the only thing I have ever heard or seen about the melting of the Siberian permafrost. That and to not provide any kind of "alternative explanation" for it.




The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.
> 
> http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html




Wayne, scientific method is a good way, but not the only way to know things.  Scientific method also has some major flaws as you'd be aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Wayne, scientific method is a good way, but not the only way to know things.  Scientific method also has some major flaws as you'd be aware.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology




That is beside the point in this discussion with Grasshopper.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.
> 
> http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html




This part I find highly suspicious:



> "Unscrupulous scientists are exaggerating and peddling fears about permafrost thawing and swamp methane becoming aggressive," said Professor Nikolai Alexeyevsky, Doctor of Geography and head of the land hydrology department at Moscow State University. "Siberia has vast natural resources, oil and gas above all. The article aims to set public opinion against Western Siberia and discourage investment in its industry, oil and gas. They are saying, 'Swamp methane poses a global threat, so don't touch Siberia.' They are deliberately trying to cause panic." Alexeyevsky says that permafrost has a natural cycle of change, and that it advanced and retreated in the pre-industrial era as well.




Given that most oil in Russia is produced by state-owned companies, who have no qualms about building oil infrastructure in Siberia, it makes little sense to me.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> That is beside the point in this discussion with Grasshopper.




Yes probably beside the point, but I suspect SCM is less grasshoppery than everyone reckons.    

I wanted to reiterate is that *no belief can possibly be true*, from either side of the fence.  The 'decline effect' strongly supports this idea.  What we believe is plastic and changeable.  How can anyone possibly attach themselves to the pro or anti sides of the debate?  

http://harmonist.us/2011/01/the-decline-effect-and-the-scientific-method/


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

In the closing paragraphs, Lehrer sums it up very nicely.  So impressed, I've decided to make it my signature.

"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". ♦

And if upon reading this article, your mind gives up struggling to understand and goes blank, *that's the red pill right there.*  Deepen it.


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes probably beside the point, but I suspect SCM is less grasshoppery than everyone reckons.




Yes.

The original Grasshopper was a likable young lad and had an open mind.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Yes.
> 
> The original Grasshopper was a likable young lad and had an open mind.




That supposed to be an insult? I'd expect nothing less from a science sceptic 

When things don't go your way....ad hominem!


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That supposed to be an insult? I'd expect nothing less from a science sceptic
> 
> When things don't go your way....ad hominem!




You thought that was an insult? I merely described a couple of virtues of the original Grasshopper. You filled in the blanks yourself. 

And science should always be sceptical, that is how the scientific method works:



> The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.




No ad hom necessary, you're doing a great job of shooting yourself in the foot already.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> And science should always be sceptical, that is how the scientific method works:




I do not understand how you can point to the scientific method; yet ignore the vast majority of all scientists worldwide who all agree about climate change.

This includes Russian scientists.
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/minor-myth-russian-scientists-dont.html


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do not understand how you can point to the scientific method; yet ignore the vast majority of all scientists worldwide who all agree about climate change.
> 
> This includes Russian scientists.
> http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/minor-myth-russian-scientists-dont.html




You make the mistake of concluding there are two extreme poles to the debate.

There is no scientific agreement or consensus on climate change, though there may be political agreement. In fact there is a spectrum of hypotheses on climate change varying on the basis of the various forcings and feedbacks. 

No scientist actually denies climate change, or human influence on it. The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of *catastrophic* anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> No scientist actually denies climate change, or human influence on it. The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of *catastrophic* anthropogenic climate change.




Does it need to be (proven) _catastrophic_ before you decide it is well worth it to take serious action?

If a dangerously overpopulated world which is fast moving towards *catastrophic* overpopulation, don't you think that even a consistent 10% reduction in farming yields  worldwide would be pretty damn bad?


----------



## cynic (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of *catastrophic* anthropogenic climate change.




+1

I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree!


----------



## sails (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> First time for everything sails!
> 
> I don't take one side or the other because I just haven't studied it nearly enough.  All I've done is read a few newspaper articles.  It's not a big issue for me.
> 
> But I do have a question for the anti side:  How is it that all the world governments have agreed that global warming is a man made phenomenon?  For me it's hard to imagine that they have all been led astray by the available reseach.  Considering the cost and upheaval it causes, surely they would have done some investigating of their own?  They can hire all the renowned scientists they need to analyze this objectively, and yet they have all come to the same conclusion?





GB - I think the answer is obvious.  It's an excuse to lift more taxes from the people and redistribute wealth.  I also understand that Gillard has promised 10% of carbon tax to the UN.  

How much has overseas carbon taxes actually reduced co2?  If we are simply trading carbon credits, how does that actually reduce atmospheric co2 even IF it is a problem?

Atmospheric co2 is but a tiny proportion to other atmospheric gasses.  

Follow the money...


----------



## So_Cynical (21 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.
> 
> http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html




That's not a test...its one guys opinion.

And did you actually read it..ill quote.



> When asked if methane might erupt from the swamps and seriously pollute the atmosphere, Melnikov said, *"The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane.* This is an energy reserve for future generations,




Oh so the "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane"



> In the 20th century, *the temperature in Siberia rose by one degree Celsius*, which was only 0.4 degrees more than in the Mediterranean (which rose by 0.6 degrees Celsius). But even if, as predicted, by the end of the 21st century temperatures have risen by three degrees, this will not be a catastrophe.




And Global temps are rising.



> " He pointed out that the greatest man-made menace is not methane, but CO2, which is the principal greenhouse gas.




Methane has a 56 times higher green house gas rating than CO2..in GHG terms 1 unit of Methane = 56 units of CO2...Methane is a big deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

-------------------------------------

More Russian Methane.



			
				dailymail.co.uk said:
			
		

> The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia.*They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed.* 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,'





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...imes-potent-carbon-dioxide.html#ixzz1vVNJZOjQ


----------



## Glen48 (21 May 2012)

A couple and their insurer have been ordered to pay their elderly relative 55 thousand dollars ... after she slipped on a gumnut while visiting their house.

 Lets see if GG  denies this ???


----------



## wayneL (22 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> That's not a test...its one guys opinion.
> 
> And did you actually read it..ill quote.
> 
> Oh so the "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane"



Uh yes. That's why it's there? It's been accumulating for millennia. 




> And Global temps are rising.




Thanks for that breaking news SC.... but most people know that temps have been on a rising trend since the end of the little ice age. But once the statistical trickery has been removed, we don't get anything like Mann's hockey stick.



> Methane has a 56 times higher green house gas rating than CO2..in GHG terms 1 unit of Methane = 56 units of CO2...Methane is a big deal.




...and measured in parts per *billion*. It breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 May 2012)

Glen48 said:


> A couple and their insurer have been ordered to pay their elderly relative 55 thousand dollars ... after she slipped on a gumnut while visiting their house.
> 
> Lets see if GG  denies this ???




Thank you Glen.

I deny this.

The hotel has been ringed all night by protesting nomads in Landcruisers towing caravans, and we arise in South Townsville this morning to a grey dawn, fully clothed line dancing and radios tuned in at full volume to Alan Jones.

Where do they all come from?

gg


----------



## Glen48 (22 May 2012)

Thats OK GG thought it may have been one of your off springs, using a wireless is ok as long as they don't play ABBA all the time.
Let the forum know if AJ talks about GW.
 Any one who is rent from a landlord or the bank keep you walkways clean and your insurance up to date..


----------



## Glen48 (22 May 2012)

Here is the church denying the average USA citizen their rights to decide on their family and future where does it say the church has the power to dictate with the same force as Hitler or any other dictator.
If you deny God exist you have to accept She does because some child molester in the Vatican tells you so, .

More than three dozen Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal courts on Monday challenging the constitutionality of the so-called contraception mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

Claiming that their “fundamental rights hang in the balance,” a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate suits against the requirement that employers’ health insurance plans cover birth control.

The mandate created a storm of controversy when it came to light as part of Obamacare. The Obama administration softened its position on the mandate several months ago.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress ”” and will keep at it ”” and there's still no fix," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York. "Time is running out, and our precious ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

In a statement, the archdioces said: "The Archdiocese of New York has filed this suit because the federal government is requiring religious organizations, under penalty of law, to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate access to services that are contrary to their deeply held and constitutionally-protected religious beliefs."

Obama shifted responsibility for paying for reproductive procedures from religious institutions to health insurance companies. But employees of Catholic institutions will still be able to get contraceptive coverage from their health plans. 

Just last month, Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl told Newsmax.TV, “This is the invasion of our religious freedom by a government mandate.”

A statement from the University of Notre Dame on Monday said the requirement would call on religious-affiliated groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."

“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures” and “authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently ‘religious’ to warrant an exemption from the requirement.”

The Archdiocese of Washington also issued a statement reading in part: “Today, the Archdiocese of Washington filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) unprecedented mandate dramatically redefining religious ministry and requiring religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.

“Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc.; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; and The Catholic University of America are also plaintiffs in the same action.

“The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need.

“Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith. Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption.

“Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.”

Cardinal Wuerl said in the statement that the mandate forces Catholic institutions “to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that we believe are morally wrong.”
 © 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Read more on Newsmax.com: Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate 
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


----------



## basilio (22 May 2012)

Denialism is everywhere..  The despair of George Monbiot.


> *
> My fight may be hopeless, but it is as necessary as ever*
> 
> On trial beside Mladic in The Hague is a disturbing case of infectious idiocy and denial which the left can no longer ignore




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial


----------



## Glen48 (22 May 2012)

The worst offender is USA denying the world's people to a democratically elected government if your head of government is seen to be a threat to USA business then the CIA etc will step in for to over throw the head and put in their own choice  such as the Shar of Iran put in by Carter, Pinochet put in to Chile, or Cater sending Atomic bomb parts via Cape Town to Pakistan to attack and funding the Taliban to fight Russia. 
Even when USA had signed an agreement to limit Nuclear weapons it did not stop them from doing what USA wanted to do and used the same blacking mailing policies as the Mafia uses to get protection money ..

If Russia wasn't seen as a threat to USA post war USA would have gone ahead with their domineering agenda.   
Any thing seen as a move to Communism or against USA idea's how the government should be run is a call to arms for both sides. 
A country that spends more money on power to run military air conditioning units than NASA should get what USA is getting and will continue to get.
 Is it any wonder USA is so hated by the World.


----------



## Logique (22 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Denialism is everywhere..  The despair of George Monbiot.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial



Monbiot's despair is the world's hope. We know his form. Warmist attack dog, with the credentials of...journalist (surprise!). Don't hold your breath waiting for Monbiot to endorse cold fusion research.


----------



## Calliope (22 May 2012)

Logique said:


> Monbiot's despair is the world's hope. We know his form. Warmist attack dog, with the credentials of...journalist (surprise!). Don't hold your breath waiting for Monbiot to endorse cold fusion research.




Bazza has been raving on about the Guardian's George Monbiot for years. He has as much credibility as Al Gore.


----------



## Julia (22 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Bazza has been raving on about the Guardian's George Monbiot for years. He has as much credibility as Al Gore.



Whenever I see Al Gore's name mentioned, my mind immediately produces that picture of his huge mansion with lights burning in every room.
Wouldn't that depict, Basilio, a level of hypocrisy?


----------

