191–200 of 276 posts
I'm given to understand that climate denialism is more-or-less confined to the USA, can anyone shed some light on that?
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-get-stupid-clean-energ...
To me science is never settled, and anyone who claims climate crisis is pretty much definite has an incentive that has other hidden angles than we are led to believe. This is not a denial position, but is largely characterised so. Nothing in science is black-and-white, there are infinite shades of gray in between. Having said that, Freeman Dyson also seems to share this opinion, and I think it carries some weight: ht…
To argue that inherent complexity means we should remain in a state of inaction is in itself a form of denialism. The fact that it is difficult to make predictions about chaotic systems does not mean that the null hypothesis is automatically true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction you'll find leads your 2nd paragraph: the study was retracted . The climate denial movement never budges a nanometer on any of its points. The scientific movement admits its mistakes and errors. And yes, there's dispute in small details of the matter. The grander narrative has been clear since the 19th century. No, not a typo. Not since the 20th, but the 19th.
I'm pretty sure they have budged on some of their points, and that folks have taken this as proof they admit they're entirely wrong, but putting that aside for a moment... Suppose for a moment that the scientists hadn't budged. That they'd listened to all the folks who say that climate change deniers are simply liars who aren't worth listening to and not even bothered to look at their complaints. Who would you believ…
Science, as a process, is a process at arriving at truths. It's fundamentally dialectic, as opposed to rhetorical, the profession practiced by many around the denial movement, several in this thread.
Naomi Oreskes' name has already been mentioned here. In addition to writing on climate (and ozone/CFCs, tobacco, lead, asbestos, etc., etc., etc.) denial, she's written on the history of one of the more amazing feats of collective mind-changing in science: the adoption of the theory of plate tectonics, or continental drift, as it was first called.
When proposed, the theory was ridiculed as completely crackpot. But what happened was that more and more evidence, and mechanisms, turned up. And, yes, over the course of about a half century, many of the original objectors died. But from roughly 1915 to 1965, established views changed from believing that the continents had always occupied their current positions to the understanding that they very much had not.
Geography, geology, fossils, radioactive decay (as both heat source and clock), undersea surveys, earthquake faults, seismic analysis. The preponderance of evidence changed minds.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/plate-tectonics-an-insiders-h...
https://www.worldcat.org/title/rejection-of-continental-drif...
I'm given to understand that climate denialism is more-or-less confined to the USA, can anyone shed some light on that?
I'm given to understand that climate denialism is more-or-less confined to the USA, can anyone shed some light on that?
It's confined to the USA and Australia, where the combination of powerful Murdoch media and rural fossil fuel billionaires reign over the conservative parties. (Canada and UK get some spillover.) See above links to "Dark Money" and "Merchants of Doubt" for US. For Australia: https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-get-stupid-clean-energ...
No it's not. It's very much a thing in Europe too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power. Republicans typically have been more supportive of nuclear energy throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994. It's true Republicans aren't as hung up specifically on CO2, but Republicans have been largely in support of nuclear since before you ever heard the phr…
I don't recall the GOP advocating for nuclear power. They are less opposed to it but I have never heard that they actively pursued it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been several points in time where the earth was on average 8° higher. Furthermore your claim on "clouds will never form" is plainly wrong, and more likely than not, the opposite of what actually happens in a 8° hotter earth. Climate change is happening, no real doubt about that, but the mindless apocalyptic claims that are parroted around need to stop, because not only are they wrong, but they also decreas…
Why are they wrong?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap...
> For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.
There is a great book: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Two things to learn from the book: 1) The are same people and organizations behind many science related denials: DDT, tobacco, SDI defenders, acid rain, ozone hole, and climate change denial are linked to same group of people. They try to "maintain the controversy" and "keep the d…
While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.
The underlying study is misleading, and the article’s characterization of the findings is outright deceptive. The article claims that “nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement.” That billion dollars is the total funding flowing into a variety of conservative and pro-market organizations, which advocate on a wide variety of issues. The underlying study and the artic…
> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening. This is a flat-out false representation. The Heritage Foundation has sown the seeds of denialism many times. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif... https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-... (section titled "climate change realities") https://www.desmogblog.c…
[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
The underlying study is misleading, and the article’s characterization of the findings is outright deceptive. The article claims that “nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement.” That billion dollars is the total funding flowing into a variety of conservative and pro-market organizations, which advocate on a wide variety of issues. The underlying study and the artic…