Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?

Jump to new
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.

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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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. :banghead:
 
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. :banghead:
Click to expand...

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


I promise I'll read the article

Soon
:cool:
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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. :banghead:
Click to expand...

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. :cool:
 
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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

sails said:
Either this word should be banned, or it should be used freely by both sides of the debate.
Click to expand...

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
 
Starcraftmazter said:
With those sorts of retorts, you wonder why the scientific community does not think highly of you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wayneL said:
Oh please! That was not a retort, it was drawing attention to your shortcomings in analysis.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

DB008
Crypto USDT - US Tether
Replies
2
Views
4K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Mofra
Top