Denialism, What is it, and how should scientists respond

[Akrasia]

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..

Scepticism is good, all true scientists are sceptics. You can not be a scientist unless you are constantly questioning if the evidence supports the conclusions.

Denialism is not good, ever, it's destructive, because it derails the discourse away from any potential constructive criticism towards politicised rants and conspiracy theories. Denialism is not about finding out the truth, it is about filibustering those who are trying to engage in real science.

No true sceptic would ever engage in an argument that dismisses the possibility of any of the science from the opposing view being valid because they're all by definition corrupt.

That is the current strategy from the Denier movement. The more of an expert you are on the subject, the less credibility you have with the deniers because in order to become such an expert, they consider that you must be part of the corrupt establishment. The only people they trust are outsiders, people with little or no expertise on this subject. In fact, I have had the ludicrous experience of being told that one particular piece of evidence was wrong on the basis that an anonymous blog poster (who couldn't even spell the most simple words) declared it so.

[feargach]

+1
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.

You can read minds? You should have said so earlier. If a telepath says it, it must be true!

[Cassandra Syndrome]

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..

Sceptics do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Look at Venus with its 96% CO2 composition. But the Earth's is 0.03%. And CO2 is between 5 and 20% of GHG. Water vapour is the biggest source. Burning fossil fuels adds 10 Billion tons a year into an atmosphere with a mass of 5 x 10 to the power of 18kg.

And aside from all this the Sun is the biggest factor in controling the climate.

We have to convert to renewable energy rapidly. But this alarmist tripe is the wrong way of going about it. THey are interfering in the natural mechanism of the market that wants to move the equilibrium of cheap energy. But they are causing negative market externalities in our attempts to passively move to that point.

And if you point this out, you are a dimwitted yokel, denier and right wing nutjob.

[feargach]

And if you point this out, you are a dimwitted yokel, denier and right wing nutjob.

That's what happens when you accuse the whole of the planet's scientists of being in a massive conspiracy of deceit. You get dismissed by every sane person, it's inevitable.

[Wakeupcall]

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..

Nice post thanks

[Simon.D]

Denialism is not good, ever, it's destructive, because it derails the discourse away from any potential constructive criticism towards politicised rants and conspiracy theories. Denialism is not about finding out the truth, it is about filibustering those who are trying to engage in real science.

The main point I was attempting to make was that denialism is not that different do it's opposite, i.e. believers.. And that there is a bias at the route of this tread, that for some reason the unfounded stance of denying a theory is somehow different and less acceptable to the unfounded stance of accepting a theory as truth...

I wouldn't go as far to say that denialism is nonconstructive, as I'd see them adding pressure to climatic science to establish more robust, and less deniable theories... I even think that denying is possibly more constructive for science than those who simply accept such theories as truth, who provide no challenge to established theories..

[Cassandra Syndrome]

That's what happens when you accuse the whole of the planet's scientists of being in a massive conspiracy of deceit. You get dismissed by every sane person, it's inevitable.

When did I say that? I'm not the one who starts threads calling for censoring people and demonising political views that are not in anyway taboo.

There you go again, "sane person".

You just want to control people. Its a trait among your community.

I have said on several occasions that I want renewable energy ASAP.

[Húrin]

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..

The image of the AGW preacher whose science is based on desire rather than fact is a straw man invented by deniers. No sane person thinks that AGW is good news. Nobody would believe in it because it's "desirable".

Science needs sceptics, yes. That is where AGW came from. Scepticism that the sun was doing all this, or sulphur particles, or clouds etc.

How does science need deniers? Their position is far more absolute than even an activist scientist like James Hansen.

[Húrin]

The main point I was attempting to make was that denialism is not that different do it's opposite, i.e. believers.. And that there is a bias at the route of this tread, that for some reason the unfounded stance of denying a theory is somehow different and less acceptable to the unfounded stance of accepting a theory as truth...

Well, who is accepting AGW as "truth" without knowing the foundation?

We have to convert to renewable energy rapidly. But this alarmist tripe is the wrong way of going about it. THey are interfering in the natural mechanism of the market that wants to move the equilibrium of cheap energy. But they are causing negative market externalities in our attempts to passively move to that point.

AGW doesn't cause carbon trading. Right-wing politicians do.

You just want to control people. Its a trait among your community.

You want to control science by demonising scientists.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Well, who is accepting AGW as "truth" without knowing the foundation?




AGW doesn't cause carbon trading. Right-wing politicians do.



You want to control science by demonising scientists.

I want the truth. A world with cheap renewable energy will not happen with technocratic control freaks at the helm.