Climate change consensus

[phank]

IF what I was saying had any relation to how you are characterizing it, you might have a point.

But it doesn't.

It is one thing to ask reasonable and reasoned questions. It is another thing to hate something so much you'll do almost anything to discredit it.

Discerning the difference in the grey areas in between is far from trivial, but you are far closer to the latter category than the former.




Jim

And of course, that caricature sure beats reading something that reveals your belief as silly, right? But you might try this instead:

http://www.amazon.com/there-was-Jesu...SAPF7HS48T95CG

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-There-God-...P7NSB55JR624D0

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161...f_rd_i=desktop

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-I...JCENVPQ8VB9VC6

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-There-God-...d_bxgy_b_img_z

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/How-God-Works-...6NZ3KDWEG9PK5M

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-F...21AY6HVG728YFZ

or really many many more. Now, I understand that you won't read a word of any of these, but rejecting a large and growing library of refutation to your preaching as "silly" is becoming increasingly untenable. The number of informed, scholarly "haters" would be growing uncomfortable, if you chose to recognize that they exist.

But in one way I agree with you: It IS another thing to hate something so much you'll do almost anything to discredit it. The mountaing of things you must discredit, however, isn't so easy for "reasonable and reasoned questions" to hand-wave away.

[Adrift]

Robert Price, John Loftus, Richard Carrier, Jerry Coyne and the founder of HowStuffWorks. ooh. you've got some heavy hitting NT scholarship there.

[Truthseeker]

I mean complete Bayesian analysis. And Bayesian analysis requires, among other things, that something widely believed to be true must be assigned a very high "prior". In non-mathematical terms, must be regarded as correct barring really compelling reasons otherwise.

I am amazed you are so contemptuous of us believers that you would pull that Bayesian lever. I suspect you really don't know what Bayesian analysis is. If Carrier did try Bayesian analysis, he sure fooled you. History is not physics.

[oxmixmudd]

And of course, that caricature sure beats reading something that reveals your belief as silly, right? But you might try this instead:

http://www.amazon.com/there-was-Jesu...SAPF7HS48T95CG

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-There-God-...P7NSB55JR624D0

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161...f_rd_i=desktop

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-I...JCENVPQ8VB9VC6

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-There-God-...d_bxgy_b_img_z

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/How-God-Works-...6NZ3KDWEG9PK5M

or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-F...21AY6HVG728YFZ

or really many many more. Now, I understand that you won't read a word of any of these, but rejecting a large and growing library of refutation to your preaching as "silly" is becoming increasingly untenable. The number of informed, scholarly "haters" would be growing uncomfortable, if you chose to recognize that they exist.

But in one way I agree with you: It IS another thing to hate something so much you'll do almost anything to discredit it. The mountaing of things you must discredit, however, isn't so easy for "reasonable and reasoned questions" to hand-wave away.

I feel like I'm looking at the Bizarro World version of AIG ...


JIm

[Cerebrum123]

I feel like I'm looking at the Bizarro World version of AIG ...


JIm

No need to go to Bizarro World, this one's crazy enough as is.

[oxmixmudd]

No need to go to Bizarro World, this one's crazy enough as is.

Bizarro World as in 'everthing is reversed' a la DC Comics Superman Bizarro World. A place where the inhabitants set themselves against all things like or even that remind them of Superman. Seemed to fit ... just change 'Superman' to 'Christian'.

But you probably knew that?


Jim

[Cerebrum123]

Bizarro World as in 'everthing is reversed' a la DC Comics Superman Bizarro World. A place where the inhabitants set themselves against all things like or even that remind them of Superman. Seemed to fit ... just change 'Superman' to 'Christian'.

But you probably knew that?


Jim

I knew that, this was my apparently poor attempt at humor.

[Darth Executor]

It does not attempt to. Not all science denial has the same motivations.

I was talking about reasons, not motivation. I don't think most people have an agenda behind denying mainstream scientific theory.

Denial from the "left" often has different motivations from denial on the "right".Different individuals have different motivations on the same subject. Certain subjects get a lot of profoundly irrational denial; stand out examples are:

• Earth science; geology and deep time.
• Evolutionary biology.
• Immunology and vaccines.
• Relativity.
• Quantum physics (in this case, not so much denial as enthusiastic acceptance, but of highly confused distortions of the subject).
• Climate physics and measurement.
• Cosmology.

In each case there are one or maybe two stand out reasons for denial of well established and thoroughly tested basic discoveries; but I don't think there's one stand out reason for denial of basic science across the board.

Cheers -- sylas

Actually there is, and it's what I pointed out earlier: people don't trust scientists anymore. At least not like they used to. And stuff like this is why.

[Duragizer]

Me am not hoping no one's knocking Bizarro World in this thread. It am not my least favourite winter vacation spot.

[shunyadragon]

I was talking about reasons, not motivation. I don't think most people have an agenda behind denying mainstream scientific theory.



Actually there is, and it's what I pointed out earlier: people don't trust scientists anymore. At least not like they used to. And stuff like this is why.

People don't trust science anymore?!?!?!? An over the top generalization like this needs further explanation. The delusion of nostalgia 'not like they used to' further brings to doubt the motivation of these statements. The science of evolution has been basically been found to be true by the virtual majority of scientists for over 100 years. At what point in time did people trust science in a way they do not know, as you claim.

Yes you are about ~50% correct today, since ~50% Christians reject evolution and do not trust science, and their motivation is clear in institutions like AIG and Discovery Institute.

[Truthseeker]

I remember that many months or years ago someone opined that there is an increasing number of fraud or incompetence in science. If someone asks, I'll google for that.

[pancreasman]

I remember that many months or years ago someone opined that there is an increasing number of fraud or incompetence in science. If someone asks, I'll google for that.

I'm asking.

[Adrift]

Me am not hoping no one's knocking Bizarro World in this thread. It am not my least favourite winter vacation spot.

Isn't that avatar the dad from Twin Peaks?

[Roy]

I remember that many months or years ago someone opined that there is an increasing number of fraud or incompetence in science. If someone asks, I'll google for that.

Is this increase greater or lesser than the increase in the number of practising scientists?

Roy

[Duragizer]

Isn't that avatar the dad from Twin Peaks?

Indeed. I am, after all, a die-hard fan of the show.