4 ms·

Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I'll rephrase. ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't. When does a person specifically support 'clima

by brc 13y ago

Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I'll rephrase. ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't. When does a person specifically support 'climate denial'? If I say that the observed sensitivity is less than the forecast sensitivity from models, am I in denial? If I note that the warming period from around 1979-2000 has paused, am I in denial? If I state that the regulatory frameworks suggested and implemented have failed, am I in denial? If I make statements that project historical climate change shows large variations, am I in denial? The reason I ask this is there seems to be a drive to lump people into a category called 'denier', and I'm uncertain was to what that boundary is, as defined by the people who use it.

redthrowaway 13y ago
ID isn't a theory, it's an attempt to deny a theory. It was devised as a way to teach children that evolution is, if not false, at least not well accepted and not as ironclad as biologists claim. Everything you just stated about AGW falls into the same category, and is cherry-picked "evidence" intended to dispute that AGW is a fact, which for all intents and purposes it is. Neither you nor I have the ability to judge to what degree this or that deviation from predictions affects the theory as a whole. You know who does? Climate scientists. You know what they've concluded? It's still a fact. You seem to be very concerned that you not be labelled a science denier (as well you should be), while simultaneously being very concerned about denying the conclusions reached by scientists. Like IDers, you seem to want to pick this or that small part of the theory or this or that piece of evidence, cast doubt on it, then claim that disproves (or at least discredits) the theory as a whole. "Denial" is the correct term, here. In both cases, there are well-supported and widely accepted theories that particular groups of people don't want to believe for ideological reasons. In both cases, the drive to defend ideology takes the form of an attempt to piece together enough seemingly rational pieces of disjointed evidence to discredit the theory that threatens that ideology. And, in both cases, the attempt to deny the theory is refuted and dismissed by those best equipped to judge it. You can claim to be a skeptic, just as the person who claims there are holes in evolution that can only be explained by an intelligent designer claims to be a skeptic, but you're not. A skeptic is not someone who disbelieves or discredits, but rather is someone who reserves judgement and attempts to find counterarguments until the preponderance of evidence suggests that a claim is valid. Both evolution and AGW are supported by the vast preponderance of evidence. Disbelieving either is no longer skepticism, but denial.

by brc 13y ago

redthrowaway 13y ago

ID isn't a theory, it's an attempt to deny a theory. It was devised as a way to teach children that evolution is, if not false, at least not well accepted and not as ironclad as biologists claim. Everything you just stated about AGW falls into the same category, and is cherry-picked "evidence" intended to dispute that AGW is a fact, which for all intents and purposes it is. Neither you nor I have the ability to judge to what degree this or that deviation from predictions affects the theory as a whole. You know who does? Climate scientists. You know what they've concluded? It's still a fact. You seem to be very concerned that you not be labelled a science denier (as well you should be), while simultaneously being very concerned about denying the conclusions reached by scientists. Like IDers, you seem to want to pick this or that small part of the theory or this or that piece of evidence, cast doubt on it, then claim that disproves (or at least discredits) the theory as a whole. "Denial" is the correct term, here. In both cases, there are well-supported and widely accepted theories that particular groups of people don't want to believe for ideological reasons. In both cases, the drive to defend ideology takes the form of an attempt to piece together enough seemingly rational pieces of disjointed evidence to discredit the theory that threatens that ideology. And, in both cases, the attempt to deny the theory is refuted and dismissed by those best equipped to judge it. You can claim to be a skeptic, just as the person who claims there are holes in evolution that can only be explained by an intelligent designer claims to be a skeptic, but you're not. A skeptic is not someone who disbelieves or discredits, but rather is someone who reserves judgement and attempts to find counterarguments until the preponderance of evidence suggests that a claim is valid. Both evolution and AGW are supported by the vast preponderance of evidence. Disbelieving either is no longer skepticism, but denial.