Denial of truth

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Sep 28, 2011.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    Climate Change: The Next Generation: John Cook, The Guardian: How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

    My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough – namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members. This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make sense of it all?
    At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
    The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It's based on many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single, consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a consensus among scientists. It's not about tree-hugging or secret plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements and the laws of physics.
    Patterns in the sceptic arguments began to emerge. Instead of considering all the evidence in their search for the truth, climate 'sceptics' refuse to accept evidence that humans are causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny the scientific evidence.

    Si Modo, are you listening?
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    Global Warming is the new Snake Oil. Why are you warmists so proud of being scammed?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,769
    Thanks Received:
    4,332
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,724
    Here's an idea, quit blaming the United States. Go to freaking China and tell them they are poluting the environment and leave the US alone for a couple of years to fix the economy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Of course I am listening.

    I always pay attention to those who politicize science and soil it.

    I always pay attention to journalists who think they know what science is. It makes me laugh, at least as much as dilettantes.
     
  5. peach174
    Offline

    peach174 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    20,469
    Thanks Received:
    4,033
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    S.E. AZ
    Ratings:
    +7,317
    We all want cleaner air.
    It's how we do it.
    Right now the alternatives are too costly.
    We need to drill here for oil,gas and coal until technology finds just as cheep clean fuel as what we are using now.
    The technology of the future won't come about for another 15 years or so. Till then we need to open up our market's of oil, gas and coal.
    The Environmentalist don't seem to think that drilling can and has been proven that the two can coexist.
    The Enviro's are being unreasonable.
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,549
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    What makes you think you have the ability to scam us? We see right through you. The OP was dead-on in the portrayal of your agenda and how you basically use all the tricks that you accuse the "warmers" of using, i.e. massaged data and refusal to consider all the different aspects of climate. You claim that the "warmers" only consider CO2, when the truth is you're willing to blame everything BUT CO2, because to do so would trample your political agenda, the science be damned!!!
     
  7. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Yeah, practicing scientific integrity is the tool of tricksters.




    Idiot.
     
  8. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    IOW, he accepts the word of people who have been caught red-handed fudging the data, tweaking the computer models, willfully excluding contrary evidence, blackballing journals that dare to print the research of skeptics, including opinion pieces as "peer reviewed" data, and a host of other chicanery, as the "ultimate authority".

    Nothing to see here.
     
  9. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,549
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    It's the deniers that are the tricksters. They'll ignore any data that doesn't fit their agenda and twist the meaning of what the AGW proponrents are saying to make them appear to be the cheaters. AGW data comes from all sorts of sources and point to the same thing. The deniers have only been successful at confusing the issues.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    That is exactly the problem. His explanation only holds water if you first accept his premise that something that is 'peer reviewed' is the final say. You are basically accepting the notion that whatever something 'peer reviewed' says must be correct. That is a premise that simply can't be accepted on faith anymore.
     

Share This Page