Denialism, What is it, and how should scientists respond

[Thac0man]

It is aimed at the discussing denialism in the public health theatre, things like aids denialism, and the conspiracies around vaccines and flouridation etc but the strategies employed by science deniers in medicine are exactly the same as the strategies used by global warming deniers.

"Denialism, what is it?" was the question posed by the thread title and answered quite well above. Denialism as a term, is only a tool for those who do not wish to engage in debate. Recent setbacks for the AGW camp have meant, as ably illustrated above, that other apparent forms of denial have to be invoked to prop up the crumbling facade of hysteria and fact manipulation that is the non-"Denier"s lot.

In the not too recent past an argument was had here on P.ie on whether the work of the politically appointed UN climate change panel would not be better done by an independant international scientific body. The reason for this, as I argued, was that climate change, if it is sooooo important (and true!) deserves analysis above reproach and politiking. The consensus amongst the AGW camp was that the UN body, tainted by political whim and continually sullied by exaggeration and manipulatin of facts, is the best. Best for whom and for what exactly? That is the type of denial that is at the core of the AGW camp, that binds it as an unthinking amorphous hysterical clump of devisive paranoia.

Is there proof to back up my claim? Yes. At a crucial point where the AGW camp has again come up short and been found wanting in the area of truthfullness and scientific method - this thread pops up. To defend recent overstated facts? No, to attack those who question said overstated and inacurate facts.

When the AGW camp comes up short, as they have done recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8571353.stm
....two things are sure to happen, firstly no one will lose their job for telling lies using public funds, they will simply go on to work on the next lie. Secondly, the term Denier becomes hot again, to provide cover for the period between the last lie and the next one.

Any debate from the AGW camp about the need for better standards? No. Only more excuses and screams of "denier" while yet more public cash is sloshed into the cause which all goes towards sealing the fate of our collective climate.

I am not someone who thinks there is no climarte change, I do think precautions have to be taken and possible preventitive steps made where possible. However, I fail entirely to see how shovelling billions of Euroes in the pockets of 3rd world kleptocracys will solve anything - yet it was a solution that yet again raises not a shred of criticism from the AGW camp at the last summit.

Now what is most strange about the Copenhagen summit was that although it was a complete failure, the AGW camp came out better off apparently. How is that? Because the ultimate dividend was not action on climate but the provision of poltical ammunition and the further aggrandisment of the AGW cause. It seems those in the AGW have forgotten that this world we have they have to share with others. As it is the AGW camp seem content to llive in a world of their own, well maintined as it is by ample UN and government funds. Sickening.

[Sean O'Brian]

Denialism as a term, is only a tool for those who do not wish to engage in debate.

True. It is an incredibly thuggish attempt to stigmatise AGW skeptics and place them on the same level as Holocaust deniers. It is the language of vilification. What sort of a yob tries to stifle a scientific debate by likening his opponents to David Irving? The use of this word is totally unacceptable.

[Húrin]

"Denialism, what is it?" was the question posed by the thread title and answered quite well above. Denialism as a term, is only a tool for those who do not wish to engage in debate. Recent setbacks for the AGW camp have meant, as ably illustrated above, that other apparent forms of denial have to be invoked to prop up the crumbling facade of hysteria and fact manipulation that is the non-"Denier"s lot.

You well illustrate the article's point by entirely ignoring its contents and instead just going on a rant about the "AGW camp" which I will now quote from:

In the not too recent past an argument was had here on P.ie on whether the work of the politically appointed UN climate change panel would not be better done by an independant international scientific body. The reason for this, as I argued, was that climate change, if it is sooooo important (and true!) deserves analysis above reproach and politiking. The consensus amongst the AGW camp was that the UN body, tainted by political whim and continually sullied by exaggeration and manipulatin of facts, is the best. Best for whom and for what exactly? That is the type of denial that is at the core of the AGW camp, that binds it as an unthinking amorphous hysterical clump of devisive paranoia.

Actually in that thread there was no consensus among those posters who do not deny AGW. Some favoured a less politicised body and others favoured a more politicised body.

Is there proof to back up my claim? Yes. At a crucial point where the AGW camp has again come up short and been found wanting in the area of truthfullness and scientific method - this thread pops up. To defend recent overstated facts? No, to attack those who question said overstated and inacurate facts.

Can you provide links to the repeated posting of this thread?

When the AGW camp comes up short, as they have done recently:
BBC News - Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts
....two things are sure to happen, firstly no one will lose their job for telling lies using public funds, they will simply go on to work on the next lie. Secondly, the term Denier becomes hot again, to provide cover for the period between the last lie and the next one.

So what happens when the anti-AGW camp is caught lying?

Any debate from the AGW camp about the need for better standards? No.

Hasn't George Monbiot, as journalists go the arch-pamphleteer for taking climate change seriously, been arguing for higher standards in science lately?

yet again raises not a shred of criticism from the AGW camp at the last summit.

Who didn't raise criticism? The US and EU restrained 3rd world demands for cash. Doesn't that amount to more than criticism?

Now what is most strange about the Copenhagen summit was that although it was a complete failure, the AGW camp came out better off apparently. How is that? Because the ultimate dividend was not action on climate but the provision of poltical ammunition and the further aggrandisment of the AGW cause.

It seems those in the AGW have forgotten that this world we have they have to share with others. As it is the AGW camp seem content to llive in a world of their own, well maintined as it is by ample UN and government funds. Sickening.

What is the AGW camp Thaco? In Copenhagen summit I saw what looked like a lot of arguing and bickering, not one big bunch of happy campers.

True. It is an incredibly thuggish attempt to stigmatise AGW skeptics and place them on the same level as Holocaust deniers. It is the language of vilification. What sort of a yob tries to stifle a scientific debate by likening his opponents to David Irving? The use of this word is totally unacceptable.

So what word should be used for those against AGW who are not actually sceptics?

[owedtojoy]

"Denialism, what is it?" was the question posed by the thread title and answered quite well above. Denialism as a term, is only a tool for those who do not wish to engage in debate. Recent setbacks for the AGW camp have meant, as ably illustrated above, that other apparent forms of denial have to be invoked to prop up the crumbling facade of hysteria and fact manipulation that is the non-"Denier"s lot.

In the not too recent past an argument was had here on P.ie on whether the work of the politically appointed UN climate change panel would not be better done by an independant international scientific body. The reason for this, as I argued, was that climate change, if it is sooooo important (and true!) deserves analysis above reproach and politiking. The consensus amongst the AGW camp was that the UN body, tainted by political whim and continually sullied by exaggeration and manipulatin of facts, is the best. Best for whom and for what exactly? That is the type of denial that is at the core of the AGW camp, that binds it as an unthinking amorphous hysterical clump of devisive paranoia.

Is there proof to back up my claim? Yes. At a crucial point where the AGW camp has again come up short and been found wanting in the area of truthfullness and scientific method - this thread pops up. To defend recent overstated facts? No, to attack those who question said overstated and inacurate facts.

When the AGW camp comes up short, as they have done recently:
BBC News - Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts
....two things are sure to happen, firstly no one will lose their job for telling lies using public funds, they will simply go on to work on the next lie. Secondly, the term Denier becomes hot again, to provide cover for the period between the last lie and the next one.

Any debate from the AGW camp about the need for better standards? No. Only more excuses and screams of "denier" while yet more public cash is sloshed into the cause which all goes towards sealing the fate of our collective climate.

I am not someone who thinks there is no climarte change, I do think precautions have to be taken and possible preventitive steps made where possible. However, I fail entirely to see how shovelling billions of Euroes in the pockets of 3rd world kleptocracys will solve anything - yet it was a solution that yet again raises not a shred of criticism from the AGW camp at the last summit.

Now what is most strange about the Copenhagen summit was that although it was a complete failure, the AGW camp came out better off apparently. How is that? Because the ultimate dividend was not action on climate but the provision of poltical ammunition and the further aggrandisment of the AGW cause. It seems those in the AGW have forgotten that this world we have they have to share with others. As it is the AGW camp seem content to llive in a world of their own, well maintined as it is by ample UN and government funds. Sickening.

Nonsense. Your example is fabricated from pure spin. In fact, it is an excellent example of how "spectics/ deniers/ whatever" cherry pick an example (rarely a scientific paper) and hang their whole case on it. A newspaper (Guardian) summarised the content of the link as "Climate change adverts draw mild rebuke from advertising watchdog".

Incidentally, the IPCC is a review body - its remit is to summarise the contents of the scientific literature, which is overwhelmingly on the side of AGW. Only one minor error has been found in the last report - the science is solid.

The challenge to you is to scientifically show it is otherwise. Victimhood like "OOOh, poor me, they're calling me a denier, sob, sob," does not really cut it.

[owedtojoy]

Leakegate: Is that true, or did you read it in the The Times? : Deltoid

This link has more about the advertising watchdog and Global Warming.

[Congalltee]

True. It is an incredibly thuggish attempt to stigmatise AGW skeptics and place them on the same level as Holocaust deniers. It is the language of vilification. What sort of a yob tries to stifle a scientific debate by likening his opponents to David Irving? The use of this word is totally unacceptable.

The Holocaust? Sure those Jews would all be dead by now, so it doesn't really matter. Many would then decompose, so blaming Hitler for something nature would have taken care of is futile. I have not seen any direct evidence of the holocaust, so it can't be true. Photographs can be doctored you know. Accounts can fictionalised. It is just a way of shovelling money into a book and film industry. It is a vast conspiracy. Notwithstanding oppressive laws in Austria, I hereby deny that 6 million Jews were gassed in the Holocaust*.







(The figure vary but gassing might only be responsible for 4-5 million Jewish people during that period. The balance were killed by disease, starvation and remainder were non-jewish.)

[Cassandra Syndrome]

True. It is an incredibly thuggish attempt to stigmatise AGW skeptics and place them on the same level as Holocaust deniers. It is the language of vilification. What sort of a yob tries to stifle a scientific debate by likening his opponents to David Irving? The use of this word is totally unacceptable.

+1

Its a disgusting term. Its a reflection on their own mindset. They couldn't give a rats arse for the welfare of the planet. They only care about their own self interests and selfish pseudo intellectual world.

Its the middle of March, the fields around me are yellow, there are no flowers and the trees are bare as a result of a severe winter. Never seen this before. Nobody remembers this as bad. There has been severe winters all across the Northern Hemisphere, an inactive tropical storm season in the Southern Hemisphere and no major record breaking heatwaves.

Why? The Sun is at its lowest minimum in a century.

If this was a matter of opinion grand. But these fanantics have been used by the elite to inflict carbon tyranny upon the world. Instead of making a huge effort to turn the planet completely to cheap renewable energy, which will require a lot of carbon initially to set up, they have decided to infiltrate all our transactions, hampered enterprise and increase zany regulations. Not to mention the ETS derivative nuclear bomb.

Petrol Prices are now at a record in real terms at the pumps in Ireland. Thats going to really help the recovery.

[Akrasia]

True. It is an incredibly thuggish attempt to stigmatise AGW skeptics and place them on the same level as Holocaust deniers. It is the language of vilification. What sort of a yob tries to stifle a scientific debate by likening his opponents to David Irving? The use of this word is totally unacceptable.

The only people who ever mention the holocaust are those who are being labeled Deniers. Everyone else recognises that the term denier is legitimate in other contexts as the Paper in the OP explains. Please find me anywhere in the paper listed on the OP that even implies that denying the holocaust is a pre-requisite to be called a denier.

This is a basic and extremely common logical fallacy.

I have already asked what positive label you would like to call yourselves so we can refer to you as something other than a denier. Sceptic doesn't work because to be a sceptic, you need to be open minded and equally critical of all sources. It is impossible that anyone can describe the IPCC as a corrupt institution while taking information unquestioningly from places like James Dellingpole or places like Watts' and Mcyntire's websites.

Evolution deniers call themselves creationists or Proponents of Intelligent Design. What does your anti global warming movement want to call yourselves? (you'll probably have a challenge finding something positive that you all actually agree on by the way)

[Akrasia]

+1

Its a disgusting term.

What do you want to be called?

Its the middle of March, the fields around me are yellow, there are no flowers and the trees are bare as a result of a severe winter. Never seen this before. Nobody remembers this as bad. There has been severe winters all across the Northern Hemisphere, an inactive tropical storm season in the Southern Hemisphere and no major record breaking heatwaves.

Why? The Sun is at its lowest minimum in a century.

If this was a matter of opinion grand. But these fanantics have been used by the elite to inflict carbon tyranny upon the world. Instead of making a huge effort to turn the planet completely to cheap renewable energy, which will require a lot of carbon initially to set up, they have decided to infiltrate all our transactions, hampered enterprise and increase zany regulations. Not to mention the ETS derivative nuclear bomb.

Petrol Prices are now at a record in real terms at the pumps in Ireland. Thats going to really help the recovery.

The rest of what you wrote is covered very very nicely in the Paper in the OP.

Specifically, the third feature of Denialism, Selectivity. You are claiming that global warming is not real because some parts of the world had a cold few weeks in winter. You consistently refuse to accept that despite these cold areas, the average global temperatures for the period in question were significantly above average

Your continued assertion that it has to be the sun is just getting tiresome. You have absolutely no scientific support for your pet theory. None Whatsoever. It has been completely disproven that global warming was being driven by the sun. You could of course easily contradict the point I have just made by pointing towards some respectable scientific bodies or publications that support your theory, but You won't, you are too caught up in Point one of the OP, that there is all a big conspiracy and the lack of support for your theory is actually proof that it must be true.

[Simon.D]

I'm no fan of AGW theory, mainly because of the attention it's getting, as I don't see it as that big a deal, true or untrue, (when compared to other issues we face, i.e. energy resources, population growth etc), and that we're probably not going to do enough to stop it, so why even bother trying?..

In my opinion all science needs its deniers and moreso it's skeptics... The day we start accepting what scientists say as gospel is the day science dies... This discipline doesn't deal in facts, it deals in theories and the creation of models that approximate observed effects, which need constant questioning for improvements to be made in our understanding.. Many just don't seem to get this very basic and underlying point... We generally think in terms of absolutes and facts, rather than possibilities and probabilities.. From infancy we're given this absolutist perspective on the world around us, which is quite a reasonable stance to take on many every day things, but an incorrect and unscientific one all the same.. In reality we don't actually know anything and that everything we accept as true is unproven, and theoretical, and based on a multitude of unknown assumptions...

For someone to claim AGW is untrue is not that dissimilar from someone claiming the theory is true, as the stance of deniers is more or less the same as believers, with neither being based on fact.... Yes AGW may be a more probable explanation for climactic trends over the last centuries, but as many are finding out in cheltenham this week, the theories holding the best odds are not certainties..

When talking about science an agnostic approach is needed, and every scientist needs to fully realise that they are not preaching the truth, only a crude approximation of it.. I suppose the essence of what I'm saying here is that no one can say (from any scientific platform) that AGW deniers and sceptics are in any way wrong.. I think something along these lines needs to be introduced into our education system, such that people actually understand what science is.. I think a start would be to ban words like fact, certain, definite etc from being mentioned in a scientific context..