Why do people deny science?

[Trajan]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

lets see; in my time- Alar would poison us all, , DDT would all the birds( thank you supreme hack rachel carson), the air was supposed to be virtually unbreathable by 2030....the 'new ice age' was upon us ( in 30 years or so which puts us past that time-line ), acid rain , ozone depletion should have burnt our skin off by now,.....the Population Bomb (another deadline to mass starvation that has passed too)...what else? I must be missing some more 'science' driven alarmist horse shit,

 

[westwall]

You are absolutely right, of course, and I am sure Oddball also knows that you are right - but don't expect him to admit it.

People invest a lot of pride in their positions on climate change. I often see posters here arguing points they know hold no water.

He's not right. AGW is a myth. CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic. In fact, it's beneficial to plant life..

Too much of a good thing...

But that begs you to actually understand science, so I guess it's hopeless.

I have a PhD in geology. What scientific degree do you hold?

 

[Papageorgio]

He's not right. AGW is a myth. CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic. In fact, it's beneficial to plant life..

Too much of a good thing...

But that begs you to actually understand science, so I guess it's hopeless.

I have a PhD in geology. What scientific degree do you hold?

According to the nut job liberals, you deny you exist! Their stupidity just keeps increasing.

 

[FactFinder]

Why do people deny science?

It may have to do with the fact that it is conducted by humans and so very often flawed. Especially when they try to push theory as fact.

 

[mamooth]

I have a PhD in geology.

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

 

[Saigon]

I have noticed that several of our Deniers here - gslack, westspam, Fox and Polar - seem to be obsessed with where other posters are from and what their jobs are. Hence we've seen inexplicable attacks against most of the pro-science posters here.

From my side I assume everyone else is honest about what they do, and I take them at their word. I'd rather debate the topic than conduct trials.

It seems to me both a gutter tactic and a sign of clear desperation - real 'shoot the messenger' stuff.

 

[westwall]

I have a PhD in geology.

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

The difference is when we challenge you on aspects of your claim your responses don't make sense. You can ask me any geologic related thing period and I can back it up chapter and verse and if it isn't too esoteric probably from memory.

Further were you intelligently discussing ideas you wouldn't need to resort to calling sceptics "deniers". That single word exposes all of you for the closed minded,0 anti-science religious nutters you have all turned into.

 

[westwall]

I have noticed that several of our Deniers here - gslack, westspam, Fox and Polar - seem to be obsessed with where other posters are from and what their jobs are. Hence we've seen inexplicable attacks against most of the pro-science posters here.

From my side I assume everyone else is honest about what they do, and I take them at their word. I'd rather debate the topic than conduct trials.

It seems to me both a gutter tactic and a sign of clear desperation - real 'shoot the messenger' stuff.

Case in point....if you wish to be taken seriously as a "intelligent" debater then YOU must act the part. Tossing pejoratives around just makes you look like idiots.

No one pays any attention to idiots. So, if you wish to be treated as adults...act like one.

 

[IanC]

I have a PhD in geology.

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have a PhD in geology.

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.

Herein lies your problem Ian...'Climategate' was a trumped-up scandal and multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role.

And in the supposed liberal media, 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal

 

[Oddball]

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.

Herein lies your problem Ian...'Climategate' was a trumped-up scandal and multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role.

And in the supposed liberal media, 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal

In other news, G.Gordon Liddy, John Mitchell and E. Howard Hunt thoroughly investigated the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, and found no evidence of any wrongdoing.

 

[IanC]

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.

Herein lies your problem Ian...'Climategate' was a trumped-up scandal and multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role.

And in the supposed liberal media, 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal

have you read any of the emails? have you looked into any of the investigations?

let's just think about Phil Jones' delete all AR4 emails email. with FOIA in the header no less. did the English inquiries look into it? no, they said they would have had to question him under caution (Miranda in the US). did the Penn State inquiry look into Mann for deleting the emails? they asked him, he said no, they left it at that. Wahl later admitted to NOAA that he got the email from Mann and deleted the emails. he said it was the first time anyone asked him about it!!!!

if you believe that the inquiries were legitimate attempts to get to the truth of the matter then you are sadly mistaken. whitewash is more like the correct term for studiously avoiding any areas of contention.

 

[Oddball]

when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.

Herein lies your problem Ian...'Climategate' was a trumped-up scandal and multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role.

And in the supposed liberal media, 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal

have you read any of the emails? have you looked into any of the investigations?

let's just think about Phil Jones' delete all AR4 emails email. with FOIA in the header no less. did the English inquiries look into it? no, they said they would have had to question him under caution (Miranda in the US). did the Penn State inquiry look into Mann for deleting the emails? they asked him, he said no, they left it at that. Wahl later admitted to NOAA that he got the email from Mann and deleted the emails. he said it was the first time anyone asked him about it!!!!

if you believe that the inquiries were legitimate attempts to get to the truth of the matter then you are sadly mistaken. whitewash is more like the correct term for studiously avoiding any areas of contention.

He doesn't give a fuck.

Let sources like Heartland Institute obtain some funding from petro companies and they have zero credibility, no matter how sound the facts and reasoning turns out to be...But perish the thought that those who have a vested interest in keeping the AGW hoax going be held under the slightest skepticism, for their "investigation" and subsequent clearing of the East Anglia/UCAR/NCAR/Penn State scamsters.

It's how shameless hackery works.

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?

Because to me that is simply laughable, and explains very clearly where Denialism went wrong.

Personally, I'd rather get information from NASA, the American Physical Society and the British Academy of Sciences than the Heartland Society!

 

[Oddball]

Oddball -

Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?

Because to me that is simply laughable, and explains very clearly where Denialism went wrong.

Personally, I'd rather get information from NASA, the American Physical Society and the British Academy of Sciences than the Heartland Society!

Irrelevant.

You claim your funding sources to be pure as the wind-driven snow, while anyone and everyone else who funds any skeptical source as one step removed from Beelzebub himself....It's how hackery works.

Oh, and that you prefer the people who were actively involved in the coverup and whitewashing of the East Anglia scandal says far more about you than anything else.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oddball -

Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?

Because to me that is simply laughable, and explains very clearly where Denialism went wrong.

Personally, I'd rather get information from NASA, the American Physical Society and the British Academy of Sciences than the Heartland Society!

Irrelevant.

You claim your funding sources to be pure as the wind-driven snow, while anyone and everyone else who funds any skeptical source as one step removed from Beelzebub himself....It's how hackery works.

Oh, and that you prefer the people who were actively involved in the coverup and whitewashing of the East Anglia scandal says far more about you than anything else.

Hey Jethro, maybe if these same think tanks and 'scientists' hadn't previously taken tobacco money to deny smoking causes cancer, they might have some credibility. They are hired guns for any and all polluters and murderers. The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's that smoking causes cancer.

But in your world, money ALWAYS trumps human life.

 

[Oddball]

This isn't about tobacco, junior.

But your churlish attempts at deflection and rationalizing your ad homs is duly noted.

 

[Bfgrn]

This isn't about tobacco, junior.

But your churlish attempts at deflection and rationalizing your ad homs is duly noted.

Wasn't your butler reading to you? Did you try to fly solo here Jethro? It IS about tobacco, not because of what I say, it's because of what the Heartland Institute DID...

The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies

Long before the Heartland Institute was in the business of organizing events like the "International Climate Change Conference" they were hard at work trying to minimize the negative public perception that second-hand tobacco smoke was bad for your health.

With that kind of past how could the media take the Heartland Institute and their upcoming climate conference seriously? Heartland could have easily played the role of the "Academy of Tobacco Studies" in the movie Thank you for Smoking.

How could anyone take seriously a group that took money from tobacco companies and downplayed the harmful effects of tobacco and then moved on to take money from oil companies and said global warming is all a big hoax?

A three year old could figure this one out.

more

 

[Oddball]

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use still doesn't cause cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use still doesn't cause cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.

Game, set, match...Bfgrn in straight sets...

I knew when I read the line 'A three year old could figure this one out' that you were in over your head...