I have recently become aware of two camps of thought with regard to global warming/climate change, niether one relating to religion vs science. On one side is the internationally recognized theory of rapid devastating change and on the other a token uncertainty of the actual changes occuring in terms of what effects we may be facing and how quickly they will emerge.
As a "regular sort" I don't really know a lot of the science involved with our changing conditions and so I guess that puts me in between the two in this arguement. They both have very valid points and the answer to this riddle is important- so what do you all think?
Define "denialists" please... or are you just name calling?
1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges.
2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.
3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.
- AGW is a scientific theory commonly held by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community (not 'guess' as in the layman's definition of theory, but the scientific definition).
- Therefore, it is reasonable to refer to someone who doesn't believe in AGW as a 'Climate Change Denier.'
- While 'Denialist' isn't a real word, its connotation seems pretty self-evident to me.
- That's calling someone what they are. Name-calling would be calling someone a "Moron, jerk-off, self-righteous denialist." While the denialist part might be right, the rest is indeed name-calling.
- Simply calling someone who denies AGW a 'denier' (or variation thereof) is not name-calling any more than calling everyone on this site god-deniers. It's what we are.
I still fail to see how the word 'denial' in and of itself is overly derogatory. It's what you put it next to that gives it weight or not. "Holocaust Denier;" not a very popular thing to be right now. "Denying the existence of God;" I think every person on this site is quite proud to be called that.
"Climate Change Denier." I have a Facebook friend who is quite convinced that AGW is nothing more than political propaganda designed to make Al Gore rich, and is quite proud to call herself a denier, satisfied that she'll be vindicated one day.
Now, while the dictionary definition of 'denier' is someone who disagrees with a commonly held belief, I would like to know how the definition of 'nazi' in any way relates to taking the scientific community's word for it that 6+billion people dumping unhealthy shit into the planet while strip-mining the good bits is having a negative impact on the environment.
You could call us 'Environmentalists.' Like 'denier,' it's an accurate term. And half the country still regards it as a dirty word, bringing to mind visions of granola crunching hippies chaining themselves to trees in Oregon.
We need science driven governments and societies.As it stands, most if not all ruling bodies lack error correcting mechanisms. Self-aware creatures must seek the truth and once it reveals itself, follow it no matter how discomforting it maybe. And if we learn that the truth we have been following is not apart of reality, we must quickly jettison it away from us.
All sides, regardless of their subjective emotions and ideals, should be disappointed that in the 21st century with all the knowledge and understanding of how connected we are to each other, we still arbitrarily separate ourselves into tribes choosing to follow our own ideologies instead of working for global reciprocal altruism.
I just have to say that I have recently finished watching all of the videos of Thunderfoot on youtube, and that closed the book on this case for me. I'm 100% with climate scientists now, without a doubt. I recognize that their predictions could be wrong, but they are as good as they can be based off of what we know, which is quite a lot.
I guess I felt that since I started this mess that I should toss that in. It is okay to be skeptical guys. But if you are, I think that you should find proof against the majority concensus and focus on discussing that point instead of just saying, "I don't think it's right." That is dismissive. I know not all of the skeptics are guilty of that.
Also, many of those who were in favor of the accepted hypothesis who were nasty towards the skeptics should learn to be calm and patient with people- especially fellow atheists.
I recognize that their predictions could be wrong, but they are as good as they can be based off of what we know, which is quite a lot.
Well put David.
We could be wrong about gravity, but I'm not going to throw myself off a building to test that. What I say to the skeptics at the end of the day:
- The mountains of evidence 'for' is more convincing to me than the scant politically charged evidence against.
- AGW ultimately consists of dozens, hundreds of intertwined elements. We'll never be able to prove it to the satisfaction of the true skeptic.
- What if after all this it turns out we are wrong? Who/What has been hurt by going green? By turning away from finite fossil fuels and towards renewable, green energy? How does my having solar panels or recycling my cardboard bring down western civilization as we know it? "Oh no! I paid $2,000 less in gasoline this year! The horror!"
What if after all this it turns out we are wrong? Who/What has been hurt by going green? By turning away from finite fossil fuels and towards renewable, green energy?
From talking to my parents, a lot of the hysteria is centered around money (big surprise). Going green is apparently very bad for a lot of very wealthy people (coal, nuclear, and oil) and obviously good for those going the green route. My mom told me that Al Gore is a billionaire because to the green movement (I haven't been able to confirm this at all, but how would you even?). On the shows that they watch and listen to, they are innundated with false facts about how coal and oil are actually clean, that radioactive waste is not any kind of a problem, and about how a bunch of liberals are making money.
HI, there's a great peer-reviewed article about the "elite" US press coverage of global warming and how the search for "balance" led to the impression that there was a scientific debate about global warming. Basically, journalists trying to be 'balanced' unwittingly (or not) presented an informational bias - the authors point out that that kind of 'balanced reporting' doesn't work for science because science relies on a preponderance of evidence on one side of an issue.
there's also an article about the paper that gives a nice timeline of how GW was detected/predicted way back in the the late 1800's and throughout the 20th century (so it's probably not a 'liberal conspiracy', after all!)
just thought i'd share. www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf
Oh it is very much a liberal conspiracy.Although I wouldn't call it that as such at least not in the American meaning of liberal. Its much more a conspiracy aimed at people who take pride in knowing nothing of any value, people who say, oh Ive no idea how any of my things work.