• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

Somerville said:
What is the "proper course of action" for a Libertarian? How does one stop a multi-billion dollar corporation from dumping waste into a river - a river that is used for drinking water by some residents?
Click to expand...

You keep changing the topic/subject. You have gone from the partisan divide on the importance of AGW, to (federal?) subsidies for fossil fuels and are now talking about dumping (industrial?) waste into a water supply. There is a vast difference between having no (removing all?) environmental protection laws and passing the GND - trying to equate opposition to the GND with removal of any (all?) other environmental protection statutes is both dishonest and moronic.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You keep changing the topic/subject. You have gone from the partisan divide on the importance of AGW, to (federal?) subsidies for fossil fuels and are now talking about dumping (industrial?) waste into a water supply. There is a vast difference between having no (removing all?) environmental protection laws and passing the GND - trying to equate opposition to the GND with removal of any (all?) other environmental protection statutes is both dishonest and moronic.
Click to expand...

I disagree - I am not changing the topic/subject. Every point I am putting forward has to do with climate change and how we should react to what the scientists are saying. My post on smog and burning rivers and polluted water all tie to the Green New Deal and its hoped-for changes in the way we are destroying the world we live on - mostly to the benefit of a very few people, aided and abetted by those who see any efforts to improve stuff as "imposing massive government" on the population.

All goes back to the post in which I noted that political leanings are generally an indicator of which way a person leans on the matter of climate change.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one unable to imagine an opposing point of view.
Click to expand...

What is there to imagine? I see the opposing point of view every time I come to this section of the forum.

I can also imagine what your grandkids must go through at school if they really believe as you do and don't hide it. Probably a ton of criticism and ridicule. :(
 
Buzz said:
What is there to imagine? I see the opposing point of view every time I come to this section of the forum.

I can also imagine what your grandkids must go through at school if they really believe as you do and don't hide it. Probably a ton of criticism and ridicule. :(
Click to expand...

Not at all.
 
Buzz said:
What is there to imagine? I see the opposing point of view every time I come to this section of the forum.

I can also imagine what your grandkids must go through at school if they really believe as you do and don't hide it. Probably a ton of criticism and ridicule. :(
Click to expand...

i suspect they humor grandpa, at best.

I know my gramps used to spew a lot of stupid **** before he died. I'd try to humor him and not hold the silly crap he said against him. But, truth be told, today I mostly remember him as the old guy who spewed a lot of stupid ****.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm a fan of most sciences. Absolutely.

I'm not a fan of junk science. I want science to be fully applied, questions answered, doubts raised and addressed.

Climate Science is not science. It is agenda.

No legitimate scientific effort crushes fellow scientists who question the results.

No legitimate scientific effort throws out the Scientific Method to protect it's claimed results.

If science believes it has found a cure for cancer, do you want scientists who question the results silenced?
Click to expand...

Well stated. Personally I reject any scientific claims that do not seek and welcome objective peer review,
 
calamity said:
i suspect they humor grandpa, at best.

I know my gramps used to spew a lot of stupid **** before he died. I'd try to humor him and not hold the silly crap he said against him. But, truth be told, today I mostly remember him as the old guy who spewed a lot of stupid ****.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I have had a similar experience with both my grandpa and my father. Both just completely misinformed and constantly repeating the same stupid ****.

The only difference is that I know grandpa(still kicking) is beyond help. But my father is smart enough to educate. But he is just as brainwashed as most right-wingers nowadays and is totally immune to facts or reason. He gets all of his opinions from FOX news and Facebook.

:(
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Interacting with these people usually goes like this:

Person A: It's been proven that the earth is spherical, here's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that's the case for you to examine and all of the scientists in related fields agree with 99.99% consensus.

Science denier: I'm not going to look through all that science and mathy bull****! I found a blog from Dr. Crazypants in Belgium that claims its all just an illusion by aliens. So ha! Suck it liberals!
Click to expand...

Attempting to claim anyone who does not buy into one sided versions of climate science as equivalant to flat earthers is not intellectual debate. My bet is that you lack the foggiest clue about climate science yourself and only buy into the climate change hysteria for the sake of validating your political correctness credentials.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Attempting to claim anyone who does not buy into one sided versions of climate science as equivalant to flat earthers is not intellectual debate. My bet is that you lack the foggiest clue about climate science yourself and only buy into the climate change hysteria for the sake of validating your political correctness credentials.
Click to expand...

Yes, ignoring facts is "flat earthing." At least you have that much correct.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Attempting to claim anyone who does not buy into one sided versions of climate science as equivalant to flat earthers is not intellectual debate. My bet is that you lack the foggiest clue about climate science yourself and only buy into the climate change hysteria for the sake of validating your political correctness credentials.
Click to expand...

From one of those librul earth-hugger websites Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
 
Somerville said:
From one of those librul earth-hugger websites Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
Click to expand...

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003


". . . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003


". . . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "
Click to expand...

Mr Crichton was playing with words and how one may understand a word in ways that support one's beliefs - not unexpected from a man who had a very successful career using words to tell tales.

Consensus doesn't mean, "Oh that leading scientist has proven a hypothesis, therefore we must all agree." Rather, consensus in science is a result of scientists being able to verify the results of the first scientist's research by using different approaches to the problem being examined.
 
Somerville said:
Mr Crichton was playing with words and how one may understand a word in ways that support one's beliefs - not unexpected from a man who had a very successful career using words to tell tales.

Consensus doesn't mean, "Oh that leading scientist has proven a hypothesis, therefore we must all agree." Rather, consensus in science is a result of scientists being able to verify the results of the first scientist's research by using different approaches to the problem being examined.
Click to expand...

Look.

Jacks a big fan of science fiction.

You see it in every post of his.
 
Somerville said:
Mr Crichton was playing with words and how one may understand a word in ways that support one's beliefs - not unexpected from a man who had a very successful career using words to tell tales.

Consensus doesn't mean, "Oh that leading scientist has proven a hypothesis, therefore we must all agree." Rather, consensus in science is a result of scientists being able to verify the results of the first scientist's research by using different approaches to the problem being examined.
Click to expand...

He was also a Harvard MD. He continues from the same link:

". . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "

 
calamity said:
Yes, ignoring facts is "flat earthing." At least you have that much correct.
Click to expand...

Right back at you. Anyone who assumes opposing views make one a flat earther, is in fact a flat earther.
 
Jack Hays said:
He was also a Harvard MD. He continues from the same link:

". . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, (deleted for space)

(deleted because I didn't respond to the Goldberger case)

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "
Click to expand...

Crichton was wrong when he claimed that Dr Gordon of Aberdeen had stated that he could cure the disease. The situation was much more complex than Crichton's few words attempting to debunk "consensus" in the case of puerperal fever. There were other doctors who agreed with Gordon. "Although most theorists saw puerperal fever as inflammatory, a few adopted the opposing view that inflammation was a consequence and an appearance—rather than a cause—of the condition." So, not a consensus.

Ignaz Semmelweiss did have some problems in practicing medicine, in part because of his participation in some controversial political movements in Vienna where he was the #2 in the city's obstetric clinic. His ideas about cleanliness were popular with interns but his politics caused his superior to refuse the concept. He returned to Pest in Hungary in 1850, nn 1855 he was appointed professor of obstetrics at the University of Pest. The greatly reduced maternal death rate caused other doctors to begin washing their hands as they treated patients. The problem lay with the lack of knowledge about germs during the early and mid 19th century. It was Louis Pasteur's work about 20 years after Semmelweiss's death in 1865 that verified the idea of germ infection. Crichton's description of the "consensus" against Semmelweiss is not supported by the records.

Crichton is wrong about acceptance of the theory of continental drift, which has been replaced by plate tectonics, and its acceptance in the scientific community. The study which became accepted was published in 1958, not 1961. The problem with Alfred Wegner's hypothesis was not that the continents had moved over the millenia, there was the shape of South America and Africa but also geological evidence. His problem which caused rejection of his reasoning about the cause of continental drift was the idea of a centrifugal pseudoforce created by the Earth's rotation. That centrifugal force simply wasn't strong enough to move continents. British geologist Arthur Holmes had some interesting ideas about the forces which could move continents and published his theory in 1944. Shortly after WWII ended, scientists began looking at the ocean bottoms around the world and their studies became part of Samuel Carey's symposium at the University of Tasmania in 1958 with the first public discussion of plate tectonics.

Mr Crichton apparently had his ideas rejected by the scientific community and as a consequence began attacking the idea of "consensus". He was a climate change denier
 
Somerville said:
Crichton was wrong when he claimed that Dr Gordon of Aberdeen had stated that he could cure the disease. The situation was much more complex than Crichton's few words attempting to debunk "consensus" in the case of puerperal fever. There were other doctors who agreed with Gordon. "Although most theorists saw puerperal fever as inflammatory, a few adopted the opposing view that inflammation was a consequence and an appearance—rather than a cause—of the condition." So, not a consensus.

Ignaz Semmelweiss did have some problems in practicing medicine, in part because of his participation in some controversial political movements in Vienna where he was the #2 in the city's obstetric clinic. His ideas about cleanliness were popular with interns but his politics caused his superior to refuse the concept. He returned to Pest in Hungary in 1850, nn 1855 he was appointed professor of obstetrics at the University of Pest. The greatly reduced maternal death rate caused other doctors to begin washing their hands as they treated patients. The problem lay with the lack of knowledge about germs during the early and mid 19th century. It was Louis Pasteur's work about 20 years after Semmelweiss's death in 1865 that verified the idea of germ infection. Crichton's description of the "consensus" against Semmelweiss is not supported by the records.

Crichton is wrong about acceptance of the theory of continental drift, which has been replaced by plate tectonics, and its acceptance in the scientific community. The study which became accepted was published in 1958, not 1961. The problem with Alfred Wegner's hypothesis was not that the continents had moved over the millenia, there was the shape of South America and Africa but also geological evidence. His problem which caused rejection of his reasoning about the cause of continental drift was the idea of a centrifugal pseudoforce created by the Earth's rotation. That centrifugal force simply wasn't strong enough to move continents. British geologist Arthur Holmes had some interesting ideas about the forces which could move continents and published his theory in 1944. Shortly after WWII ended, scientists began looking at the ocean bottoms around the world and their studies became part of Samuel Carey's symposium at the University of Tasmania in 1958 with the first public discussion of plate tectonics.

Mr Crichton apparently had his ideas rejected by the scientific community and as a consequence began attacking the idea of "consensus". He was a climate change denier
Click to expand...

That's quite the display of special pleading. "Plate tectonics" is a further evolution of the continental drift hypothesis. (I recall another formulation from my undergraduate days: sea floor spreading.) Continental drift was the paradigm-shifting breakthrough. The best summary of the revolution I've heard was that in the 1960's you could not get hired at a university if you believed in continental drift, but in the 1970's you couldn't get hired if you didn't.

Let me know when Caltech invites you to give a lecture.
 
Jack Hays said:
How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry
Mark Neff, Issues
Click to expand...

The two main factors driving modern scientific research are consensus opinions and funding. If researchers uncover evidence which goes against the consensus opinion by the main body of researchers then that evidence is often rejected without fair examination. Furthermore, since most scientific research in America is government funded, researchers know they are bound by consensus scientific opinion as well as politically correct public opinion to produce results which harmonize with pre-existing consensus opinions or they lose their jobs. We saw some evidence of this in reactions to Mary Schweitzer's discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur bones. She was mocked and resisted because her discovery did not harmonize with decades-ole assumptions about dinosaurs. Still being resisted nearly 20 years later, a Swedish researcher said this about one of Schweitzer's latest papers:

"After the JPR paper, some say they are puzzled by the persistent skepticism. "I don't get it," says Johan Lindgren, a dinosaur paleontologist from Lund University in Sweden, who has recently begun collaborating with Schweitzer. "It seems like there is a double standard," with some researchers ignoring Schweitzer's multiple lines of evidence while making their own blood claims with less backing.

‘I don’t care what they say about me’: Paleontologist stares down critics in her hunt for dinosaur proteins | Science | AAAS
 
ataraxia said:
I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, but jump all over a Manhattan real estate guy’s Declaration that it’s all just a Chinese hoax. No amount of evidence seems to be enough. They either deny it, or twist it, or just grasp at any crazy website or charlatan they can find who may have an opposing opinion. It just seems so disconnected from reality and reason.

It did not make sense, until I saw this article about why otherwise rational people can become climate change deniers, young earth creationists, believe in ESP and UFO abduction stories, deny modern medicine and think they can treat their rececently diagnosed cancer with all-natural herbal teas and yoga, become an anti-vaxxer, etc...

It’s a psychological optical illusion: when scientific facts are so unfamiliar, so uncomfortable, so against one’s view of what the world is like or should be, that it becomes preposterous to accept it. So they start to see their skepticism as being smart. The science, so readily accepted in other areas, becomes a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or give their kids autism or something. It’s not A matter of presenting even more evidence, or being more logical or rational. This is not about facts or logic.

Great article on the psychology of such science-denial:

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost Life

I think the way to try to convince these folks is not to keep presenting more evidence for climate change. It’s not about the evidence. Clearly no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. The thing that bothers them is probably that if true, it is going to involve government intervention and spending. Or that they might lose their jobs. If they are convinced that’s what it’s going to necessarily involve, they are going to keep denying it. Maybe if they are reassured that the free-market may be able to address these issues, or that new and more jobs will be created, they will not deny the issues themselves so much anymore. Of course, then there is the fear of change that we will have to contend with.

But at least this may be a blueprint for how to debate these folks. Because it is clear than trying to convince them just based on evidence and rationality is a losing proposition. You will just go against a brick wall and come back with a concussion. Because it’s not about that.
Click to expand...

It is funny, in my world, everyone believes in climate change and they just don't care. How do you solve that problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom