Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?

[awg]

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]

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]

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 ?

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]

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..

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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!

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

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]

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]

...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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.