The Hockey Stick and the Disappearing Medieval Warm Period

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately the "denialist" camp absolutely fits this definition. For a number of reasons. They are not skeptics, and they are extremely questionable in their ethics



No, they call them that because they deny evidence while providing nothing credible to the contrary. In addition to engaging in dishonest and disingenuous practices, taking quotes and data out of context, not acknowledging data that does not fit their bottom line. And if you really want to talk about name calling by either side, you should see what the denialist camp did to Dr Richard Muller, once prominent skeptic (NOT denialist) of anthropogenic climate change, the "golden boy" of the other camp, who launched his own research project and discovered... the data was correct in the aftermath, he was rebuked by many of his former pundit supporters, some of whom released his private email and other contact information for the explicit purpose of harassment and intimidation

I agree that we should try to counter their arguments more. I didn't do it hear because it is a time consuming process and a lot of work. I have other things in my life that I need to do. And in any case, I know that I will not convince ruveyn, because as soon as you counter one of his arguments he moves on to another. That isn't a very good excuse, I know, but that is why I did not try to counter his claim.

In my opinion, the inconsistency of climate "skeptics" shows that they are opposed to the very idea of climate change. They do not want it to be true, so they will use any argument against it, even if those arguments are contradictory. I believe that this is because they do not want climate change to be true and are willing to use to any argument of why it isn't. I suspect that nothing will ever be able to convince ruveyn of anthropogenic climate change. I think that that qualifies him as a denialist.

The thing I don't understand is, can protecting the Earth for future generations ever really be argued to be a bad idea?

The unborn have no claims on the living. Neither do the dead.

ruveyn

I don't know anything about climate science. My belief in climate change is 95% argument from authority.

But I think that the heuristic "people who have spent their lives studying something should be relied on for knowledge about that thing" is basically reliable. And I know that in every wealthy country, a vast majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. I find it difficult to think of a motive for them to all be in a conspiracy together, and I find it difficult to see how I could claim to know more than they do about climate science.

On the other hand, the motives for people to not believe it are painfully obvious. And I'm not just talking about oil companies. I'm talking about plain old human nature.

So in the end, it seems obvious to me which side is wrong, just from the nature of the issue.

Argument from authority is only a fallacy when the authority doesn't apply in the field being debated. If I said that climate change must be true because the Pop believes the climate science (I know that some bishops have made statements to this effect, but they might be Anglican and not Catholic), then that would be a logical fallacy. Saying that you believe it because 97% of the experts agree on climate science is not a fallacy.

Last update of the site was 2008. It also has that made by a crazy person look.



Good gosh that looks like me!

Well that's as maybe, but shouldn't we at least try and avoid crapping all over it?

I disagree about the part with respect to the unborn. As long as we know that the unborn are going to be born (and another few generations most assuredly are) I think we should feel obligated to give them a livable world. By ruveyn's logic it is fine for a pregnant woman to smoke and drink as much as she wants, because the one that will suffer isn't born yet and she shouldn't feel any obligation to consider its welfare.

Last edited by AstroGeek on 06 Mar 2012, 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why I'm not suprised...

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they fit the description. So what?

Calling names instead of making your case makes it look like you have no case.


Every time I hear anything about this debate, I hear 'denialist' or something similarly derogatory.

There was a lecture in an architecture class I took where the TA told us about his views on climate change, and said he felt sorry for us if we didn't believe in it. He didn't talk about science, he talked about how we *ought* to *believe* in climate change. I didn't ask his political affiliation, but I'd be willing to bet I could guess it correctly. If I heard a politician talking about climate change, I'll bet I can tell you whether they have a D or an R by their name by what they say.

Maybe you have sufficient provocation, but I don't really care. All I hear is the accusation of one side by another in a political debate. Mudslinging in a political debate isn't new or interesting.

You know, I can think of another debate where your criteria of "they deny evidence while providing nothing credible to the contrary" holds: Creationism vs. Evolution. In that debate, despite being politically and even religiously charged, supporters of Creationism are called Creationists, which is what they call themselves. They are not called 'denialists'.


I am fundamentally uninterested in mudslinging. I don't want to hear "the other side started it" or "but the other side does it too".

I looked up this guy you mention, and I couldn't find anything supporting the idea that he was smeared. I did find things that he'd said that make sense about actual science. He doesn't talk about "denialists", and I found him much more convincing than anything else I've heard.


No, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Fallacy just means that something isn't a logically compelling argument.

Argument from authority can be persuasive without being logically compelling.

To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time showing much respect for people who are willing to risk my future, and that of my entire generation and all succeeding generations, when virtually every expert is telling us we have a problem. Even if someone isn't convinced, they should still feel that inaction is too risky and that we must change our ways.

Also, I would call creationists denialists of evolution. The term fits well. It's just that there we have a term which is shorter and easier to use.

You don't seem to understand. They do not make a case. They deny evidence put before them, but do not offer anything in return. What else do you call them? The whole purpose of pointing out that they have a denialist position is to ensure people don't take them seriously because they lack credibility and are not actually engaging in debate, only obfuscating.



Perhaps if you paid attention to the actual debate you would notice that the term is used quite accurately since only *one* side offers evidence and the other just says "Nope. Sorry. Nope. Definitely not. Nope." I actually take the time to read into the science, the geology, the climate history, not just what pundits have to say and how they decide to misdirect attention away from the actual science



You're in an architecture class, if he went on a long climate science rant that would be a waste of your and his time anyway. He probably did not go into much detail because he (probably correctly) assumed that most of the individuals in the class were aware of and supported the current evidence in favor of ACC.



That is pretty well the nature of American politics and any system that is completely dominated by two parties. I wouldn't say the Democrats are that environmentally friendly however, as they're just as eager to please their industry backers as the Republicans



You're not actually paying attention to the science then, which is exactly what denialists want



You could call them denialists of evolution since they tend to use the same tactics. They made themselves a brand name though, and they are also advocating a clear idea (Creationism). Climate change denialists do not advocate any actual alternatives instead focusing on diverting attention from the science



Good, because only *one* side engages in this sort of criminality. I really don't consider the term denialist mudslinging, and that seems to be the only example given of this behavior from my "side"...



I recommend reading further into it then. I know a user here posted a long video about Muller that discussed the actions of the blogger pundits who slandered him post-B.E.S.T. (his research study meant to discover whether the ones given by IPCC, NASA et al were accurate- which he confirmed).

He doesn't talk about denialists because he isn't one, he is an actual scientist who applied scientific method to see if his skepticism was justified. His findings confirmed the IPCC data after which his study was rejected despite earlier praise for its methodology by denialists

I missed the point about knowing whether someone is D or R based on how they talk about climate change. I will tackle it now.

SO WHAT?! The fact that one party believes it and the other doesn't has no impact whatsoever on the validity of the science. I also agree with Vigilans' points on this issue--American politics is very polarized in general, and the Democrats are not environmentally friendly. Obama has done nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, he has not tried to persuade the country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, about the only thing he has done is fund some research into renewable energy. But the funding provided is much less than that provided by China, which still has a smaller economy than the USA. And it the USAs CO2 emissions are still increasing, so that tactic doesn't seem terribly effective in any case.

You're missing my point. Assuming that your case is as good as you say, you're wasting time by labeling the opposition. Assuming you're right, you're making it look like there is a debate when there isn't.


It didn't work on me. It made me take you less seriously than I otherwise would have.

Just because you *say* someone is a denialist doesn't make it true. You keep saying that they really are, but that misses the point. Not everyone is going to look into the details, and anyone who doesn't is likely to get the same initial impression I got, which is that you guys are making up for a lack of evidence with insults.


Not everyone does. I haven't, which is why I haven't said that one side is right or wrong.

I'm trying to get you to understand that a lot of people will react like I did to the label 'denialist'. It doesn't matter if it's deserved or not; it makes it sound like you are making up for a crappy case by calling the other side names.


Do you want me to find some dirt on your side? Really? I'm sure I could, if necessary.

Then we could try to decide this *fundamentally scientific* matter by comparing to see who could dig up more dirt. You keep saying you have *science* on your side in this *scientific* matter. You should be talking about science and scientists, not dirt.

Excuse me, but you are being disingenuous, you were the one who focused your reply on this tangential topic of mudslinging. My entry into this discussion was a post where I described exactly what it is denialists do that makes them earn that label. I noticed your problem with it quoting *other* members, which I tried to address by providing an explanation as to why they earn that term- but you're still focusing on the use of it as if it is actually an instrumental part, and not just another obfuscation. I will not treat a denialist position of any kind with respect, and neither should anybody with intellectual integrity. They do nothing to further the discussion. Their whole purpose is to quash it. If you choose to ignore why they get nothing but contempt from the scientific community and instead focus on how people are contemptuous of them, you are not going to learn anything about the actual topic. "Rooting for the underdog" can only go so far before it becomes simply unreasonable and sophist.