Denialism, What is it, and how should scientists respond

[Húrin]

No, it would simply require that common practice be to a lack of transparency and scepticism. Funny how this are now the characteristics of claimte science now being denounced by a number of professional scientific bodies.

Like who?

[sharper]

What a bunch of crap.

Let's wait and see what the complete data set allows in research.

Odd.

Mr Watts certainly didn't bother wait to see what the complete data set shows when he published this

The Heartland Institute: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

That was a year ago and still no sign of his actual research to support such a position.

[Tombo]

Odd.

Mr Watts certainly didn't bother wait to see what the complete data set shows when he published this

The Heartland Institute: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?


That was a year ago and still no sign of his actual research to support such a position.

The quality of the stations are poor. That was clear at that point.

But to make some statistical analysis as conducted by Menne et al was spurious at that stage.

Have a look here for a better description of developemtns:

Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated Watts Up With That?

[sharper]

The quality of the stations are poor. That was clear at that point.

That's not what he said.

He published a book all about how the US temperature record is unreliable. He provided no analysis whatsoever to support that beyond "Look at that picture there!" and a year later he still hasn't.

So if someone pointing to an actual proper analysis albeit of complete data on the internet is talking "a bunch of crap." what was Mr Watts talking when he published that a year ago?

[Simon.D]

No, I think you're confusing denialism and scepticism there. Scepticism is so useful it's built into the fabric of science. Denialism, on the other hand, is irrelevant to the science - it's a political PR activity aimed at delaying policy responses. Those denialists who choose to use informed "scepticism" as their cover can be useful to the extent that they focus on genuinely sceptical activities (questioning conclusions, exposing poor evidence), but in general denialism focuses on creating doubt by promoting misinformation, smearing scientists, misinterpreting findings, and all the other techniques of political "debate".

I don't think such anti-intellectual positions are irrelvant to science.. I think the progression of science is inextricably linked to the views held by society, be they skeptical, plain denial, unquestioning acceptance etc.. Society and it's vested interests hold a lot of sway in the world of research, and often determine its focus.... Academics in turn are at risk of responding (and at times do respond) to these pressures, when it comes to determining the "right" result from their research, or when it comes to publishing the "wrong" less accepted result...

I suppose the most famous deniers throughout the centuries were the Religious, from Galileo, through to Darwin, through to denying the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research today... But I think this antagonism has made the science better, as consensus was kept weak and skepticism allowed to flourish, meaning theories were exhaustively tested and subsequently strengthened...

[Almanac]

I suppose the most famous deniers throughout the centuries were the Religious, from Galileo, through to Darwin, through to denying the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research today... But I think this antagonism has made the science better, as consensus was kept weak and skepticism allowed to flourish, meaning theories were exhaustively tested and subsequently strengthened...

The Galileo affair was basically a clash of personalities, namely his own and the pope's. Galileo corresponded with priest scientists in his research. Pope Urban VIII had been a friend and admirer of his as a cardinal. It was a dispute over a preface which led to the falling out and all the infamous consequences that subsequently resulted. And the Catholic Church has never opposed Darwinism. As for embryonic stem cell research, the Church is opposed to it morally but I don't ever recall opponents arguing that there are no potential benefits.

[feargach]

Galileo was driven by the evidence. If the pope had supplied convincing evidence that the Earth was flat, Galileo would have accepted it.

Unlike deniers, who are open about the fact that all possible evidence is powerless to change their minds.

[feargach]

Until you explain how those two perfect examples of failed predictions make the hypothesis of Dangerous AGW just as empircally rigorous as that of the theory of gravity, we are at a dead end I feel.

They're non-comparable hypotheses, as the theory of gravity can be tested and proved near-instantly, and DAGW cannot be proven or disproven for 20 years at the soonest.

[Húrin]

They're non-comparable hypotheses, as the theory of gravity can be tested and proved near-instantly, and DAGW cannot be proven or disproven for 20 years at the soonest.

Not so. "Dangerous AGW" isn't the name of any "hypothesis" since AGW is considered a theory. Contrary to many assumptions it is not based solely on models, waiting to play out in real life. There is already reams of evidence that it has been happening for most of the last hundred years.

[fiannafailure]

Not so. "Dangerous AGW" isn't the name of any "hypothesis" since AGW is considered a theory. Contrary to many assumptions it is not based solely on models, waiting to play out in real life. There is already reams of evidence that it has been happening for most of the last hundred years.

You will find it loosely follows the most important graph in the world, not surprising really, as it is a syptom of the real problem.