This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?

Jump to new
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.
 
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.
 
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
 

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

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?
 
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.
 

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
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Knobby22 said:
The world is undergoing massive change.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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
 
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,,
 
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
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crypto USDT - US Tether
Replies
2
Views
4K
Dona Ferentes
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...