Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming
Collapse
X
-
-
Yay, the denialism continues...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostYay, the denialism continues...
http://climatechange.procon.org/view...stionID=001445
Several "con" scientists there...That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
There are a few regular scientists with relevant expertise on the con column in that list. But it's effectively an appeal to authority, and most of the people in the con column aren't authorities or have external reasons to motivate their claims. And if you go the appeal to authority route, then you have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of people with relevant expertise accept the evidence that indicates climate change is real, happening, and will cause dramatic changes over the course of this century. It's not an even point-counterpoint as that list presents.
Just to be clear, though, i think that Jichard's tendency to throw inflammatory labels around is stupid.Last edited by TheLurch; 11-04-2015, 04:04 PM."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
This is like when AIDS denialists post a list of "con scientists" who don't accept that HIV causes AIDS. Or creationists / ID proponent, who post nonsense lists about a scientific dissent from Darwinism. That's the level of tactics denialsts like you resort to:
Originally posted by Jichard View PostOriginally posted by Bill the Cat View Posthttp://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...limate-change/
So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.
In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”
"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract
"Characteristics of denialism
[...]
Use of fake experts: It is rarely difficult to find individuals who purport to be experts on some topic but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. The tobacco industry coined the term “Whitecoats” for those scientists who were willing to advance its policies regardless of the growing scientific evidence on the harms of smoking."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostJust to be clear, though, i think that Jichard's tendency to throw inflammatory labels around is stupid.
Is it inflammatory when doctors, virologists, immunologists, etc. use it when discussing AIDS denialism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostHow is "denialism" an inflammatory label?
Is it inflammatory when doctors, virologists, immunologists, etc. use it when discussing AIDS denialism?
None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals.
It's not stupid at all; it makes it clear that one recognizes their denialist position for what it is.
At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.
None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
But if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
Alexey Karetnikov's "Commentary: Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent"
Seth C. Kalichman's "Commentary on “Questioning the HIV–AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent”"
"AIDS Denialism and Public Health Practice"
In science, we have no problem calling out denialists when we see them.
And I never said there was "a blanket denial of evidence". Instead, there's a denial of any evidence that's inconvenient for their denialist position.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostSo it's stupid for virologists, immunologists, etc. to call Peter Duesberg a "denialist" when they're interacting with him? It's stupid to call people denialists in print, when responding to those people's denialist claims in print?
But Duesberg's a rare breed; there's very few people who have his scientific training and still deny reality on multiple topics. He's also rare in that he won't shut down when someone calls him a denialist - he relishes being controversial.
Mea culpa for not noting that there are some exceptions to my statements above.
Originally posted by Jichard View PostBut if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
Originally posted by Jichard View PostIn science, we have no problem calling out denialists when we see them.
Originally posted by Jichard View PostAnd I never said there was "a blanket denial of evidence". Instead, there's a denial of any evidence that's inconvenient for their denialist position.
EDITED: it's, not its. GAH.Last edited by TheLurch; 11-04-2015, 05:18 PM."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSo, basically you're just using this thread as a blog, is that right? I mean, outside of this back and forth I don't really see any discussion here, and this is a discussion forum.
You are not providing that which you do not see.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostHaving talked to Duesberg personally, i think i have some perspective on this. Yes, he does deny reality; in his case, denialist is an appropriate label. But by talking with him, you can get a sense of both what motivates him to do so, and the "reasoning" process he uses to support his position. And both of those are valuable in communicating with people who don't know science well, but find Duesberg's arguments compelling.
But Duesberg's a rare breed; there's very few people who have his scientific training and still deny reality on multiple topics. He's also rare in that he won't shut down when someone calls him a denialist - he relishes being controversial.
Mea culpa for not noting that there are some exceptions to my statements above.
Originally posted by TheLurchOriginally posted by JichardBut if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
Above, you seem to claim that calling someone a denialist makes it impossible for what to delve into the details of what they say. But if that's the case, then that makes it impossible to rebut their claims, since rebutting their claims involves delving into the details of what they say.
That's funny; i've been involved in science in one way or another since the mid-1980s. And i've seen extensive debate over whether it's a productive tactic.
Well, you've sure shouted "denialist" at a lot of people here who are quite open to evidence when you bother to take the time to discuss it with them.
Bill the Cat doesn't count; you saw exactly how he reacted to the evidence showing that humans caused most of the recent global warming. He was not open to the evidence, and he instead responded in just the way one would expect a denialist to. Bill isn't open to evidence that goes against his denialist position.
Same for Mountain Man. He's a conspiracy theorist who just posts nonsense he read off of conservative websites like breitbert.com.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals. At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.
None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
"Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever"
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/
"Partisanship and ideology remain some of the strongest factors underlying attitudes about whether Earth is warming, our survey finds. Today, roughly nine-in-ten liberal Democrats (92%) say that there is solid evidence Earth’s average temperature is rising, and 76% attribute this rise mostly to human activity. Very few liberal Democrats (5%) say there is not solid evidence of warming. A clear 83% majority of conservative and moderate Democrats also say Earth is warming, but just 55% say this is the result of human activity. By contrast, just 38% of conservative Republicans say that there is solid evidence of global warming. Reflecting a divide within the GOP, conservative Republicans stand out as the only ideological group in which a majority (56%) says that there is not solid evidence of a rise in the earth’s temperature (a 61% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say Earth is warming)."
Their denialist position on this is driven by ideology, not by any genuine interest or concern about the scientific evidence that goes against their denialist position. That's how denialism works after all.
"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract
"Yet other people hold views that are equally untrue and do so with an unshakeable faith, never admitting they are wrong however much contradictory evidence they are presented with.
[...]
The term “denialism” has been coined to describe this phenomenon. [...] Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not."
"Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers"
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html
"A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1, 2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3, 4. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions5, 6. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects [emphasis added]. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks."
So there's little-to-no chance of you convincing them to change their denialist position through discussions of scientific evidence. Contrary scientific evidence tends not to change the mind of ideological conservatives. So it'll be a cold day in Hell before folks like Bill, Mountain Man, One Bad Pig, etc. accept the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW.
Comment
-
It's obvious i haven't made my argument clear, so i apologize. Let me try to summarize it briefly.
Yes, there are some hard core denialists like Duesberg*. They are relative rarities. Most of the public are not committed and haven't examined the issue that carefully. They mostly make decisions based on their cultural affinities and other non-evidence-based methods.
By shouting "denialist" at every turn, you:
a) mislabel a lot of people.
b) make them less likely to ever examine the issue on a deeper level.
*Duesberg's more of a contrarian, taking positions that run counter to what most biologists conclude in part because he loves the controversy. But it's close enough that i'll grant you it."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's obvious i haven't made my argument clear, so i apologize. Let me try to summarize it briefly.
Yes, there are some hard core denialists like Duesberg*. They are relative rarities. Most of the public are not committed and haven't examined the issue that carefully. They mostly make decisions based on their cultural affinities and other non-evidence-based methods.
By shouting "denialist" at every turn, you:
a) mislabel a lot of people.
b) make them less likely to ever examine the issue on a deeper level.
*Duesberg's more of a contrarian, taking positions that run counter to what most biologists conclude in part because he loves the controversy. But it's close enough that i'll grant you it.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
46 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment