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 ?
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.
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.
I love all the butthurt from global warming deniers. You so craaaazy
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45829669#45829669
The taxes on cigarettes more than pay for the healthcare expended on smoking related diseases as I understand it, so that seems reasonable enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
Either this word should be banned, or it should be used freely by both sides of the debate.
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.
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.
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?