Denialism

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24533
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:56 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/
This is good stuff. It'd be funny were it not so true.
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
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:03 pm

Wabash wrote: This is good stuff. It'd be funny were it not so true.
So you should be rolling ... since it is already NOT so true.
:ROFL:

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

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:03 pm

Fordama wrote:And why did they say they did that? Which papers were actually blocked?

Fordama
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419
I have no idea. You can use the above link as a starting point to backtrack and find out for yourself.
“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

Heywould
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Heywould » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:06 pm

kramer wrote:


I have no idea. You can use the above link as a starting point to backtrack and find out for yourself.
Down goes Fordie...again. I hope the three knockdown rule is in effect.
If I Had a Dollar for Every Time Capitalism was Blamed for Problems Caused by Government I'd Be a Fat Filmmaker with a Baseball Cap

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

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:06 pm

Wabash wrote: This is good stuff. It'd be funny were it not so true.
There's a sucker lacking humor born every minute...
I have seen this happen before, of course. 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, worked on the ozone issue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... lock/print
“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 3:09 pm

GOODave wrote: So you should be rolling ... since it is already NOT so true.
:ROFL:
Actually, denialism is real. Some people on this thread are obsessed with denying climate science, but that isn't the entire issue. Medical science and biology have been heavily under attack by denialist. We see that in the debate over evolution in biology, or in medical science over vaccines. The methodology of the deniers is fairly uniform--this one list is a fairly decent summary of those tactics.

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 3:12 pm

Heywould wrote:
Down goes Fordie...again. I hope the three knockdown rule is in effect.
And he had the gall to use a bit of #'s 5 and 6 of his 'How To Be a Denialist in Ten Easy Steps' list... :mrgreen:
“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 3:13 pm

kramer wrote:


I have no idea.
Didn't think so. In that email they're talking about a study using incorrect information.

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

Heywould
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Heywould » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:15 pm

Fordama wrote: Actually, denialism is real. Some people on this thread are obsessed with denying climate science, but that isn't the entire issue. Medical science and biology have been heavily under attack by denialist. We see that in the debate over evolution in biology, or in medical science over vaccines. The methodology of the deniers is fairly uniform--this one list is a fairly decent summary of those tactics.

Fordama
Yeah, okay
If I Had a Dollar for Every Time Capitalism was Blamed for Problems Caused by Government I'd Be a Fat Filmmaker with a Baseball Cap

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

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:17 pm

Fordama wrote: Actually, denialism is real. Some people on this thread are obsessed with denying climate science, but that isn't the entire issue. Medical science and biology have been heavily under attack by denialist. We see that in the debate over evolution in biology, or in medical science over vaccines. The methodology of the deniers is fairly uniform--this one list is a fairly decent summary of those tactics.

Fordama
What about the 'consensus' among experts at one time regarding fats vs carbohydrates?

A reversal on carbs - Fat was once the devil. Now more nutritionists are pointing accusingly at sugar and refined grains.

There are a number of scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong. Scientists are human and they suffer from the same shortcomings as the rest of us.
“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 3:21 pm

Heywould wrote:
Yeah, okay
Really. Of course you'd have actually pay attention to something other than politics to know about it.

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

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:22 pm

kramer wrote:
What about the 'consensus' among experts at one time regarding fats vs carbohydrates?

A reversal on carbs - Fat was once the devil. Now more nutritionists are pointing accusingly at sugar and refined grains.

There are a number of scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong. Scientists are human and they suffer from the same shortcomings as the rest of us.
So are you trying to say that scientists learning more is a bad thing?

Holy smokes!

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 3:24 pm

Fordama wrote:Didn't think so. In that email they're talking about a study using incorrect information.
Would this be the incorrect information that they were left to work with because those climate 'scientists' wouldn't give them the correct information or because they deleted it?
“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
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:31 pm

Fordama wrote: So are you trying to say that scientists learning more is a bad thing?

Holy smokes!

Fordama
Nice re-direction. (I knew you wouldn't be able to handle it...)

We've already seen fraud in the ozone science, and we've seen that the experts were wrong regarding fats and carbs.

So I'm saying that we should be extremely careful regarding AGW science.

Under their solutions, we could end up going back 90 years in our standard of living and lose much of our wealth and freedoms....and then find out that they were wrong.
“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

Heywould
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Heywould » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:43 pm

Fordama wrote: Really. Of course you'd have actually pay attention to something other than politics to know about it.

Fordama

The problem is you trying to paint everyone that doesn't agree with you as denialism. There is plenty of doubt in the scientific community, maybe not in your high school science department, but certainly in the real world.
If I Had a Dollar for Every Time Capitalism was Blamed for Problems Caused by Government I'd Be a Fat Filmmaker with a Baseball Cap

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

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:48 pm

kramer wrote:
Would this be the incorrect information that they were left to work with because those climate 'scientists' wouldn't give them the correct information or because they deleted it?
You mean the information that was still available from the original sources? No, not that I know of.

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

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:49 pm

Heywould wrote:
The problem is you trying to paint everyone that doesn't agree with you as denialism.
No, just when they are simply practicing denialism.

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

Heywould
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Heywould » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:39 pm

Fordama wrote:No, just when they are simply practicing denialism.

Fordama

And you prove my point again.

Let me ask you a simple question, why isn't the private business sector trying to help solve this "problem"? Why is it only government funded people and institutions that are sounding the alarm? There is more cash on the balance sheets of American businesses today than at anytime in our past. Why are they not investing some of this cash in trying to solve this "problem"? The expected payoff should be astronomical, no?
If I Had a Dollar for Every Time Capitalism was Blamed for Problems Caused by Government I'd Be a Fat Filmmaker with a Baseball Cap

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

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:49 pm

Fordama wrote:You mean the information that was still available from the original sources? No, not that I know of.
Here's one example:
But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei- Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.

Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. "I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services," says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that "the stations probably did move", and that the subsequent loss of the details of the locations was sloppy. "It's not acceptable," says Jones.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/ ... 10.71.html
There are also climategate emails where those 'scientists' write to each other about deleting stuff in response to a FOIA request.
“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
Notorious
Posts: 11909
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:56 am

Re: Denialism

Post by Notorious » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:45 pm

kramer wrote:
What about the 'consensus' among experts at one time regarding fats vs carbohydrates?

A reversal on carbs - Fat was once the devil. Now more nutritionists are pointing accusingly at sugar and refined grains.

There are a number of scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong. Scientists are human and they suffer from the same shortcomings as the rest of us.
Please don't ever quote this article as usage again. It's awful and wrong. It isn't wrong in the sense that fats are bad and carbs are good (it's actually neither of those), but no one has been saying carbs>fats. This is like people who say egg cholesterol will kill you. One person does a study, everyone piles on even after the study has been proven false many times, and people refuse to learn.
Never Underestimate The Fart Of A Monarch

Post Reply