Welcome to the Age of Denial

Timshel

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html

This is not a world the scientists I trained with would recognize. Many of them served on the Manhattan Project. Afterward, they helped create the technologies that drove America’s postwar prosperity. In that era of the mid-20th century, politicians were expected to support science financially but otherwise leave it alone. The disaster of Lysenkoism, in which Communist ideology distorted scientific truth and all but destroyed Russian biological science, was still a fresh memory.


The triumph of Western science led most of my professors to believe that progress was inevitable. While the bargain between science and political culture was at times challenged — the nuclear power debate of the 1970s, for example — the battles were fought using scientific evidence. Manufacturing doubt remained firmly off-limits.


Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.


Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?_r=1&
 
Lets clear a few things up

1) no sane person argues that the climate changes. We all acknowledge that. The subject of debate is whether man is the cause. That had not been proven and cannot be proven scientifically. It is a theory based off models, based on human assumptions.

2) nobody argues that evolution exists. The debate as I see it is whether evolution by itself can account for the origin of man. Science has not proven this. It is a theory.

3) why should we blindly put our faith in scientists? What makes them above reproach? You sound like scientists have never been wrong.

You are as guilty of the behavior you accuse your political opponents. You are narrow minded and selectively choose data points that support your biases while ignoring inconvenient facts.
 
Lets clear a few things up

1) no sane person argues that the climate changes. We all acknowledge that. The subject of debate is whether man is the cause. That had not been proven and cannot be proven scientifically. It is a theory based off models, based on human assumptions.
Speak for yourself Priscilla.
You may acknowledge it, many of your brethren do not.

2) nobody argues that evolution exists. The debate as I see it is whether evolution by itself can account for the origin of man. Science has not proven this. It is a theory.

Again, not even close to true. Many on the right deny evolution including Senators and representatives and all manor of religious folks.
(I am a Christian but I believe in evolution)

3) why should we blindly put our faith in scientists? What makes them above reproach? You sound like scientists have never been wrong.

No one is asking for your blind faith in science. For that matter, no one gives much of a fuck at all what you think.


You are as guilty of the behavior you accuse your political opponents. You are narrow minded and selectively choose data points that support your biases while ignoring inconvenient facts.

Like any human Prof. Baxter uses what best suits his needs. Do you not do so?
 
there are all kinds of fact denial in this world.

look at the Austrian school of economics
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html

This is not a world the scientists I trained with would recognize. Many of them served on the Manhattan Project. Afterward, they helped create the technologies that drove America’s postwar prosperity. In that era of the mid-20th century, politicians were expected to support science financially but otherwise leave it alone. The disaster of Lysenkoism, in which Communist ideology distorted scientific truth and all but destroyed Russian biological science, was still a fresh memory.


The triumph of Western science led most of my professors to believe that progress was inevitable. While the bargain between science and political culture was at times challenged — the nuclear power debate of the 1970s, for example — the battles were fought using scientific evidence. Manufacturing doubt remained firmly off-limits.


Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.


Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

Actually, it is the climate fear mongers that have taken a page from the creationists playbook. It is they (and you) who deny the actual data and pretend that fundamental issues with regard to man's interaction with nature have been decided. Which is why you try so desperately to lump those critical of AGW in with creationists. Because you know the actual data doesn't support your fear mongering claims.
 
Actually, it is the climate fear mongers that have taken a page from the creationists playbook. It is they (and you) who deny the actual data and pretend that fundamental issues with regard to man's interaction with nature have been decided. Which is why you try so desperately to lump those critical of AGW in with creationists. Because you know the actual data doesn't support your fear mongering claims.

What fear mongering?

You are another one in denial about the denial. I have not lumped you in with anything. You are lumped in by Rush Limbaugh with Rush Limbaugh. If you don't want to be associated with with the wackos like ila then criticize him instead of attacking some strawman.
 
What fear mongering?

You are another one in denial about the denial. I have not lumped you in with anything. You are lumped in by Rush Limbaugh with Rush Limbaugh. If you don't want to be associated with with the wackos like ila then criticize him instead of attacking some strawman.

LOL what fear mongering?
 
What fear mongering?

You are another one in denial about the denial. I have not lumped you in with anything. You are lumped in by Rush Limbaugh with Rush Limbaugh. If you don't want to be associated with with the wackos like ila then criticize him instead of attacking some strawman.

That mankind is the primary cause behind global warming (I mean climate change) and that catastrophic events will occur as a result... THAT fear mongering.

I am not in denial in the least. You are. You refuse any data that doesn't agree with the nonsense provided thus far from the fear mongers. You did try to lump people who criticize global warming fear mongers with those that believe in creationism... now you attempt to stigmatize those critical of you fear mongers with Rush limabaugh, because it makes you feel better about your sad position.

There is no straw man. You want to pretend those who point out the data doesn't support the AGW theory as denialists... you did so in the OP. It is your position. I have not misstated where you stand.
 
One of the IAers called me "evil" this week for "willfully destroying the lives of my grandchildren."

I guess that would go under "fear-mongering."
 
LOL what fear mongering?

Yes, where are my fear mongering claims?

SF is just reverting to his usual idiotic knee jerk reactions where he pretends the deniers are all reasonable and those who accept the scientific consensus believe... I don't know what.
 
That mankind is the primary cause behind global warming (I mean climate change) and that catastrophic events will occur as a result... THAT fear mongering.

I am not in denial in the least. You are. You refuse any data that doesn't agree with the nonsense provided thus far from the fear mongers. You did try to lump people who criticize global warming fear mongers with those that believe in creationism... now you attempt to stigmatize those critical of you fear mongers with Rush limabaugh, because it makes you feel better about your sad position.

There is no straw man. You want to pretend those who point out the data doesn't support the AGW theory as denialists... you did so in the OP. It is your position. I have not misstated where you stand.

Fuck your vague bullshit. What catastrophic events have I claimed will occur as a result?

I did not write the article. However, the author talked about how both creationists and climate deniers use similar tactics. He is not saying they are the same people. Again, that would be Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, you are a denialist on global warming if you deny the data supports anthropogenic causes. You chose to join that group.
 
Yes, where are my fear mongering claims?

SF is just reverting to his usual idiotic knee jerk reactions where he pretends the deniers are all reasonable and those who accept the scientific consensus believe... I don't know what.

1) It is not a knee jerk reaction... you are truly in denial if you think the AGW crowd hasn't been fear mongering on the issue.
2) The data does not support your so-called 'consensus'. The very fact that you continue to pretend there is a consensus shows you don't pay attention to the actual data. You continue to live in your fantasy world were the computer models have all been correct.
 
Fuck your vague bullshit. What catastrophic events have I claimed will occur as a result?

I did not write the article. However, the author talked about how both creationists and climate deniers use similar tactics. He is not saying they are the same people. Again, that would be Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, you are a denialist on global warming if you deny the data supports anthropogenic causes. You chose to join that group.


ROFLMAO... except the data does NOT support that theory.

Has CO2 risen in the past 16 years?

Have temperatures?

The first is of course YES... but according to you fear mongers that means the temps should be going up as well. Yet they are not. That suggests your precious computer models (on which your entire 'consensus' is built) are WRONG. Which is why real scientists don't go running around shouting 'consensus!' in an attempt to end the discussion. Real scientists continue to evaluate, attempt to replicate and remain open minded about what results may develop. You and your fear mongering crowd do not.
 
What fear mongering?

You are another one in denial about the denial. I have not lumped you in with anything. You are lumped in by Rush Limbaugh with Rush Limbaugh. If you don't want to be associated with with the wackos like ila then criticize him instead of attacking some strawman.

Good luck. You know what they say about it being very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it right?
 
Good luck. You know what they say about it being very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it right?

LMAO... fyi Darla... my industry WANTS the fear mongers story to push for cap and trade. They know they can make money off of it.

My salary personally is not going to be affected one way or the other. This is simply more nonsense from you... which is typical of you fear mongers.

My guess is you are not going to try to explain why it is the computer models have been wrong? Nah... you will just continue with nonsense like your above post.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html

This is not a world the scientists I trained with would recognize. Many of them served on the Manhattan Project. Afterward, they helped create the technologies that drove America’s postwar prosperity. In that era of the mid-20th century, politicians were expected to support science financially but otherwise leave it alone. The disaster of Lysenkoism, in which Communist ideology distorted scientific truth and all but destroyed Russian biological science, was still a fresh memory.


The triumph of Western science led most of my professors to believe that progress was inevitable. While the bargain between science and political culture was at times challenged — the nuclear power debate of the 1970s, for example — the battles were fought using scientific evidence. Manufacturing doubt remained firmly off-limits.


Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.


Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?_r=1&
Read this in the NYT today at lunch.

He's right those of us who are actually educated in science can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines, roll our eyes and ignore the proles.
 
Back
Top