Denialism

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
Post Reply
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:34 pm

sbayhills wrote:
I'm confused that you're now talking in circles. This is my original post which set you off?


Now you're agreeing with what I originally stated over 2 months ago?
No. You said that they were politically driven--which isn't the case. Certainly they have been under political attack, but that doesn't mean that their original research was politically driven.

I'm also struck on how similar your posts about climate scientists has in common with jimbridger's posts about law enforcement--that because you find the actions of some questionable that it means that all are questionable.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:38 pm

Fordama wrote:Really? Please site where I called you a name. Certainly I did lump you in with Jenny McCarthy, but that's only because you take the same position that she does.

Fordama
I didn't feel the need for you to include the remark about JM or blissfully ignorant. I'm sure I could find someone who you wouldn't want to be compared to that believes in man made global warming.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:40 pm

sbayhills wrote:
I didn't feel the need for you to include the remark about JM or blissfully ignorant. I'm sure I could find someone who you wouldn't want to be compared to that believes in man made global warming.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you "believe" in global warming, but in how you choose to look at evidence. That's what lumps you in with Jenny McCarthy.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:11 pm

Fordama wrote:It has nothing to do with whether or not you "believe" in global warming, but in how you choose to look at evidence. That's what lumps you in with Jenny McCarthy.

Fordama
If using common sense, logic, and agreeing with those scientists who believe differently than those who are politically driven, lumps and me in with JM, so be it.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:21 pm

sbayhills wrote:
If using common sense, logic, and agreeing with those scientists who believe differently than those who are politically driven, lumps and me in with JM, so be it.
So you claim that's what you're doing, but you show little to no evidence of that.

How many of the studies are pointing away from anthropogenic warming in comparison to how many are pointing towards it? Almost none.

What's worse, all you do is site some sort of bizarre innuendo about some alleged misdoings of a few scientists and judging the entire field by it. Like I said, it is remarkably similar to what one poster on this board repeatedly does in relation to law enforcement.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:47 pm

Fordama wrote:So you claim that's what you're doing, but you show little to no evidence of that.

How many of the studies are pointing away from anthropogenic warming in comparison to how many are pointing towards it? Almost none.

What's worse, all you do is site some sort of bizarre innuendo about some alleged misdoings of a few scientists and judging the entire field by it. Like I said, it is remarkably similar to what one poster on this board repeatedly does in relation to law enforcement.

Fordama
I look forward to the day when you will at least attempt to be open minded. Especially drop the talking down to people tone and the smug insults.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:46 am

Fordama wrote: No. You said that they were politically driven--which isn't the case. Certainly they have been under political attack, but that doesn't mean that their original research was politically driven.
:ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL: :ROFL: :rockon: :cheers: :ROFL: :ROFL: :eh?: :lol: :-k :-k :rockon: :ROFL:

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:48 am

Fordama wrote:So you claim that's what you're doing, but you show little to no evidence of that.

How many of the studies are pointing away from anthropogenic warming in comparison to how many are pointing towards it? Almost none.

What's worse, all you do is site some sort of bizarre innuendo about some alleged misdoings of a few scientists and judging the entire field by it. Like I said, it is remarkably similar to what one poster on this board repeatedly does in relation to law enforcement.

Fordama
I commend your very capable rendering of Alinsky's tactics, here.

Seriously, very well done.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:47 am

sbayhills wrote:
I look forward to the day when you will at least attempt to be open minded.
Irony...I get that.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:07 am

Fordama wrote:Irony...I get that.

Fordama
I might be borrowing that phrase. Love it.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:24 am

Fordama wrote:Irony...I get that.

Fordama
Especially drop the talking down to people tone and the smug insults.
It's obvious that you don't.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:50 am

Wabash wrote: I might be borrowing that phrase. Love it.
Wellllll ... you COULD borrow it, but in your Elroy persona, you used it quite a lot. You've also used it since returning as Wasabi (another dried root enjoyed only in small doses) so "might be" is a bit misleading.

On the other hand, from how you've used it here, previously, you really don't understand what "Irony" is ... so maybe you should get familiar with any terms you don't currently understand before you borrow them from "others."

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:01 am

sbayhills wrote:
It's obvious that you don't.
No, I got it there the most.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:54 am

Fordama wrote: By the way, where is this peer reviewed research by scientists that you are claiming
Where have you been, the climategate emails show that those 'objective and honest' climate 'scientists' colluded to block papers that had opposing views to AGW from getting peer reviewed.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:00 pm

kramer wrote:
Where have you been, the climategate emails show that those 'objective and honest' climate 'scientists' colluded to block papers that had opposing views to AGW from getting peer reviewed.
And why did they say they did that? Which papers were actually blocked?

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:23 pm

sbayhills wrote:
Peer reviewed, peer reviewed, peer reviewed. Like having the fox guarding the chickens!
This has got to be where Fordy started on his 'peer-reviewed' tangent:
[youtube][/youtube]

He mentions peer at least 9 times in the first two minutes...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:34 pm

How To Be a Denialist in Ten Easy Steps
Posted on May 13, 2010 by Randall Gross

In the latest New Scientist they cover the ever blooming fields of denialism that popped up everywhere or that bloomed anew in the first decade of the new millennium. One of their references is an important paper from Martin Mckee, and it’s at the European Journal of Public Health.
Here are his main points on how to be a denialist, I’ve expanded some bullets where I believe Martin conflated two separate tactics in the Denialist Arsenal.

1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest.
4. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
5. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more.
6. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
7. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi.
8. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
9. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature.
10. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.

http://noblesseoblige.org/2010/05/13/ho ... asy-steps/
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:46 pm

Fordama wrote:How To Be a Denialist in Ten Easy Steps
Posted on May 13, 2010 by Randall Gross

In the latest New Scientist they cover the ever blooming fields of denialism that popped up everywhere or that bloomed anew in the first decade of the new millennium. One of their references is an important paper from Martin Mckee, and it’s at the European Journal of Public Health.
Here are his main points on how to be a denialist, I’ve expanded some bullets where I believe Martin conflated two separate tactics in the Denialist Arsenal.

1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest.
4. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
5. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more.
6. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
7. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi.
8. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
9. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature.
10. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.

http://noblesseoblige.org/2010/05/13/ho ... asy-steps/
Hmmmmm ... interestingly, I don't see "present documentation showing scientific malfeasance and erroneous motivations for your conclusions" in there anywhere.

Should we add a #11?

(OH, and you have made numbers 5 - 7 into an art form)

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:34 pm

GOODave wrote:
Hmmmmm ... interestingly, I don't see "present documentation showing scientific malfeasance and erroneous motivations for your conclusions" in there anywhere.

Should we add a #11?

(OH, and you have made numbers 5 - 7 into an art form)
Good job of using #9
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:53 pm

Fordama wrote:How To Be a Denialist in Ten Easy Steps
Posted on May 13, 2010 by Randall Gross

In the latest New Scientist they cover the ever blooming fields of denialism that popped up everywhere or that bloomed anew in the first decade of the new millennium. One of their references is an important paper from Martin Mckee, and it’s at the European Journal of Public Health.
Here are his main points on how to be a denialist, I’ve expanded some bullets where I believe Martin conflated two separate tactics in the Denialist Arsenal.

1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest.
4. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
5. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more.
6. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
7. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi.
8. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
9. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature.
10. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.

http://noblesseoblige.org/2010/05/13/ho ... asy-steps/
In many branches of science there are radical movements. Increasingly, both in the rich and poor worlds, scientists are involved in active advocacy which they see as an intellectual and ethical duty.
- RIO: Reshaping the International Order, page 133 of the paperback...
Remindes me of those 80% of scientists who faked ozone science...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply