Register to Comment
Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 537
Like Tree276Likes
  1. #111
    Al Gebra Al Gebra is offline
    Al Gebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,473

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatire View Post
    The cheap and dishonest OP is based on the common false equivalence fallacy.

    The OP highlights superficial similarities between holocaust denial and climate science contrarianism in order to argue that these amount to the same thing. Something called "denialism". The aim of this absurd notion is to try to silence contrarian scientific opinion in favour of an imposed right-on "consensus".

    The Holocaust is supported by thousands of documents, eye-witnesses, photographic records, physical evidence etc. It is a matter of historical record. There is no room to argue that the holocaust never happened.

    Climate is a complex, non-linear, non-equilibrium system. It has many poorly understood feedbacks and self-organisation mechanisms. Climate varies on all possible time-scales, and is influenced by everything from extra-terrestrial solar physics, to volcanism, the behaviour of ecosystems and human activity.

    The predictions of climate models are intrinsically uncertain. That is a fundamental part of the science. Activist lunatics such as the OP think they can eliminate uncertainty by engaging in an anti-science witch-hunt.
    You just committed a false equivalence yourself.
    You are saying that because there are aspects of climate change that are complex and unpredictable that we cannot ascertain general trends and empirical data from researching the climate. That's simply not true.
    There is ample evidence of the holocaust in the shape of the things you mentioned but there is the same ample evidence of climate change the only difference is that in this instance you are simply denying that compelling data exists. This is exactly the same method that holocaust deniers employ. No evidence is ever sufficient, decisive or unequivocal in their minds.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #112
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    43,102

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatire View Post
    The cheap and dishonest OP is based on the common false equivalence fallacy.

    The OP highlights superficial similarities between holocaust denial and climate science contrarianism in order to argue that these amount to the same thing. Something called "denialism". The aim of this absurd notion is to try to silence contrarian scientific opinion in favour of an imposed right-on "consensus".

    The Holocaust is supported by thousands of documents, eye-witnesses, photographic records, physical evidence etc. It is a matter of historical record. There is no room to argue that the holocaust never happened.

    Climate is a complex, non-linear, non-equilibrium system. It has many poorly understood feedbacks and self-organisation mechanisms. Climate varies on all possible time-scales, and is influenced by everything from extra-terrestrial solar physics, to volcanism, the behaviour of ecosystems and human activity.

    The predictions of climate models are intrinsically uncertain. That is a fundamental part of the science. Activist lunatics such as the OP think they can eliminate uncertainty by engaging in an anti-science witch-hunt.
    You are wrong, of course. I suppose free scientific enquiry, as you do.

    What I pointed out was a more widely-spread phenomenon of "denialism" than has been visible before. It may be just that the internet has brought it to light.

    There is more to it than you want to confront - as ibis points out, there are people who will deny almost anything you care to mention. I even found a site where a PhD claimed Galileo was wrong, and the Church was right on the science (Benedict must be surprised!). Moon landing hoaxism is surely as weird and as far-out as you can get - an event I watched myself as a teenager.

    These people will find an excuse to reject ANY evidence you care to advance. It is clear that denialism of this sort is pathological, and there is a danger to freedom of thought and speech if such people are allowed free rein to dictate education or science policy. Look at the US states where religion is being sneaked into the science curriculum under the guise of "teaching the controversy" on evolution. Thabo Mbeki's HIV denial killed thousands in South Africa.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #113
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    43,102

    Quote Originally Posted by gerhard dengler View Post
    I've put forward no facts? What facts about what topic am I supposed to put forward?

    I asked you a simple question in my previous post : Is this thread started in order to discuss which conspiracy theories are valid and/or invalid?
    If this is where the thread has meandered to so be it.

    From the OP I assumed that this thread was a general discussion about the denial of science and history.
    More likely it is another attempt to seek attention.
    Yes, the last one. You have been posting all day and just realised? Pity.

    Fire away with your contribution.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #114
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Is this an ironic exposition of a classic conspiracy theory?
    So are Princeton University and the American Economic Association gun blazing, yokel nutwingjob conspiracy theorists as well now?

    http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/p...ospectives.pdf

    Retrospectives
    Eugenics and Economics in the
    Progressive Era
    Is everything that has the cheek to disagree with you a monster denialist whacko conspiracy theorist? Or have you unresolved issues as a child to sort out?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #115
    EPluribusUnum EPluribusUnum is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    246

    Re climate change aka global warming (and some other items as well):

    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

    Re the OP, kindly see the piece titled "The Daily Lew" (dated Sept 10, 2012). Here's one sample:

    Lewandowsky’s real finding: warmist professors more likely to believe in faked data | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    Steve McIntyre checks the data behind Professor Stephan Lewandosky’s bizarre peer-reviewed paper claiming sceptics tend to believe the moon landings were faked. Truth is, turns out what was faked were responses to Lewandowsky’s sloppy survey – and the paper should be withdrawn:


    Another:

    Steve McIntyre tears apart the survey, labeling it appropriately:

    “Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically. Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.

    As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper.”


    So you get the point, your man Steve McIntyre:

    The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response…The points that are on the top left of the graph are the more outlandish conspiracies, especially the “smoking” point which ranks right at the top. In my opinion this is a signature point. Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy, but alarmists have been trained to think skeptics do. The high rank there is the “Oreskes Effect”.

    After 120,000 comments on this blog, I can’t recall a single skeptic who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, nor do I remember reading a comment on it on any other skeptic blog, nor have I even heard a hint of it in an email. But the two issues are often tied in alarmist propaganda..

    Frequently people like Naomi Oreskes claim Fred Singer and others have doubted that smoking causes cancer, something which is an outright misrepresentation (see my point #3 here). Singer wrote about the statistical failures of the passive smoking case, which is scientifically entirely different from the well documented link between smoking and cancer. Given that this dishonest material is circulated widely on alarmist blogs, it’s likely that all 11 of those responding “yes” to that conspiracy question are the fakers, dutifully ticking off the boxes they have been trained to tick.


    And on Climate Audit:

    Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam « Climate Audit

    And here, since this about sums it up:

    Bain observed that a primary function of dehumanizing language is to reinforce the self-esteem of the “in group".

    That's what I love about you folks, by the way, you make a statement like that, and then forget all about that statement when you go after some others with the labeling some others. See your OP.

    Lastly, and by the way, re the smoker versus second hand smoke debate:

    Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

    They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done.


    And you can add:

    There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.


    Who wrote all that? Philippe Even. Who is Philippe? See:

    Philippe Even - Wikipédia

    Note the "scandal" part, in connection with the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The issue was apparently one of informed consent. Note the date, 1985, when the whole affair first began and humans were trying just about anything to keep people alive. Here's Google News capture from '85:

    Observer-Reporter - Google News Archive Search

    Now a piece or abstract of a piece from the NCBI:

    Treatment of primary HIV-1 infection with cycl... [J Clin Invest. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

    So Dr. Even and his associates weren't exactly wrong on the science of it.

    Edited to add what I forgot to include, and so more from Dr. Even on the second hand smoke fiasco:

    The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

    Why not speak up earlier?

    As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
    Last edited by EPluribusUnum; 12th September 2012 at 07:01 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #116
    Dylan2010 Dylan2010 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,657

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    These people will find an excuse to reject ANY evidence you care to advance. It is clear that denialism of this sort is pathological, and there is a danger to freedom of thought and speech if such people are allowed free rein to dictate education or science policy. Look at the US states where religion is being sneaked into the science curriculum under the guise of "teaching the controversy" on evolution. Thabo Mbeki's HIV denial killed thousands in South Africa.
    why? there is a market for education so if 10% of the population want to be taught that the Earth is 5000 years old, so what? they will fail any national exams or will not be accepted into top tier institutions
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #117
    Volatire Volatire is offline
    Volatire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    12,138

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    Alternatively, one might have to entertain the hypothesis that your rejection of climate science and their rejection of the Holocaust et al do share some roots. Have you ever considered the notion?
    Who's rejecting climate science? Just the opposite.

    Cut-and-paste activist loons such as your friend TJ want to impose "closure" on an extremely complex area of the natural world and of scientific study. This is especially bizarre because the predictions of climate science are always probabilistic.

    Scientists have to be allowed to depart from the consensus view without being sent to the inquisition or turned into "denier" social outcasts. They have to be free to make asses of themselves. That is because they sometimes end up being right.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #118
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    43,102

    Quote Originally Posted by Dylan2010 View Post
    why? there is a market for education so if 10% of the population want to be taught that the Earth is 5000 years old, so what? they will fail any national exams or will not be accepted into top tier institutions
    Well, there is the slippery slope argument.

    Today you teach the controversy about evolution and creationism.

    Tomorrow you are teaching the controversy about the heliocentric theory and the geocentric theory because the Bible says God stopped the sun in the sky so Joshua could spend more time killing Canaanites.

    In a country where science has bestowed world technology leadership, compromising the integrity of science teaching is a dangerous game.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #119
    Socratus O' Pericles Socratus O' Pericles is online now
    Socratus O' Pericles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    33,126

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcc View Post
    If you don't know, then you don't have a need to know.
    Then again there's always Wikipedia:
    Operation Gladio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A stay-behind organisation that, in the event of the Warsaw Pact invading Western Europe was to be activated as a resistance organisation. It was well resourced and some of the dumps were outside official military control.

    Regards...jmcc
    This reminds me that the oft quoted Orwell was a member of the Scallywags a secret Auxiliary Unit in WWII -very little seems to have been written about them.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #120
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    43,102

    Quote Originally Posted by EPluribusUnum View Post
    Re climate change aka global warming (and some other items as well):

    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

    Re the OP, kindly see the piece titled "The Daily Lew" (dated Sept 10, 2012). Here's one sample:

    Lewandowsky’s real finding: warmist professors more likely to believe in faked data | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    Steve McIntyre checks the data behind Professor Stephan Lewandosky’s bizarre peer-reviewed paper claiming sceptics tend to believe the moon landings were faked. Truth is, turns out what was faked were responses to Lewandowsky’s sloppy survey – and the paper should be withdrawn:


    Another:

    Steve McIntyre tears apart the survey, labeling it appropriately:

    “Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically. Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.

    As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper.”


    So you get the point, your man Steve McIntyre:

    The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response…The points that are on the top left of the graph are the more outlandish conspiracies, especially the “smoking” point which ranks right at the top. In my opinion this is a signature point. Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy, but alarmists have been trained to think skeptics do. The high rank there is the “Oreskes Effect”.

    After 120,000 comments on this blog, I can’t recall a single skeptic who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, nor do I remember reading a comment on it on any other skeptic blog, nor have I even heard a hint of it in an email. But the two issues are often tied in alarmist propaganda..

    Frequently people like Naomi Oreskes claim Fred Singer and others have doubted that smoking causes cancer, something which is an outright misrepresentation (see my point #3 here). Singer wrote about the statistical failures of the passive smoking case, which is scientifically entirely different from the well documented link between smoking and cancer. Given that this dishonest material is circulated widely on alarmist blogs, it’s likely that all 11 of those responding “yes” to that conspiracy question are the fakers, dutifully ticking off the boxes they have been trained to tick.


    And on Climate Audit:

    Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam « Climate Audit

    And here, since this about sums it up:

    Bain observed that a primary function of dehumanizing language is to reinforce the self-esteem of the “in group".

    That's what I love about you folks, by the way, you make a statement like that, and then forget all about that statement when you go after some others with the labeling some others. See your OP.

    Lastly, and by the way, re the smoker versus second hand smoke debate:

    Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

    They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done.


    And you can add:

    There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.


    Who wrote all that? Philippe Even. Who is Philippe? See:

    Philippe Even - Wikipédia

    Note the "scandal" part, in connection with the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The issue was apparently one of informed consent. Note the date, 1985, when the whole affair first began and humans were trying just about anything to keep people alive. Here's Google News capture from '85:

    Observer-Reporter - Google News Archive Search

    Now a piece or abstract of a piece from the NCBI:

    Treatment of primary HIV-1 infection with cycl... [J Clin Invest. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

    So Dr. Even and his associates weren't exactly wrong on the science of it.

    Edited to add what I forgot to include, and so more from Dr. Even on the second hand smoke fiasco:

    The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

    Why not speak up earlier?

    As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
    This is just the latest climate denier hatefest du jour. I was not going to mention Lewandowsky's research, but he did find in some online polling that climate science deniers have an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    The shock/ horror of the denialati is predictable and hilarious: they suspect a conspiracy!!!

    You can read more about it here:

    Rabett Run: Celebrity Deathmatch

    Bloggers' Hall of Amnesia

    Anyone who is interested should take the time to read both sides. The details are not relevant here.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment