3 ms·

How is it that people who want to see and check data on a subject of concern have been tarred with the brush of holocaust deniers? I'm starting to assume that

How is it that people who want to see and check data on a subject of concern have been tarred with the brush of holocaust deniers? I'm starting to assume that anyone using the word "deny" or "denier" in the context of a question of science is trying to shut down research in favor of politics.

brazzy 17y ago
The thing is: he's not saying "this particular piece of research seems questionable" - he's saying "because this particular piece of research seems questionable, measures based on it and lots of other, better sources should be reconsidered". It is in fact quite similar in style to holocaust deniers (you brought that up, not I): look through the other side's data carefully, find the weakest parts and make a big show of proving those false and conclude that therefore it must all be lies. (And yes, the holocaust deniers often go one step further and just make stuff up) In real science, you try to disprove the other side's strongest arguments, not their weakest ones.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Actually, from what I remember, holocaust deniers tend to make up stuff out of whole cloth, both for their arguments and against (for easier demolishing, see). Maybe they look at actual evidence now, but I haven't paid attention in years. In any case, I really have no idea whether the data in question was critical to the argument that climate is warming faster than it was earlier (since pretty much everyone accepts that significant global warming has been going on since at least the 1700s; the arguments are in the causes and details), but I just object to the hammering of the "deny", "denial", "denier" refrain.
antipaganda 17y ago
The Cato Institute is not participating in the worthy, rigorous, hard-nosed scrutiny that underpins any real science. They are a PR firm disguised as a think tank. They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry. They are called deniers, and derided alongside Holocaust deniers, because their actions are base and foul. They, and others like them, will cause millions of deaths from environmental upheaval in the 21st Century. Millions of deaths that could have been avoided had we worked together and put aside our political differences. Climate skeptics are the ones to laud for their bravery in the face of scientific consensus. They are the ones that evaluate every result, every harebrained theory, every scientific paper on climate change, and shoot it down in flames if it doesn't add up right. They are invaluable. However, unlike the deniers, they accept results that go against what they previously believed. They are quite willing to change their minds if they see good evidence to do so, like any intelligent human adult. Deniers, though, have no reasons beyond self-interest or madness. They simply deny everything, based on lies, speculation, half-truths, false appeals to common sense, and any more underhanded methods. They don't care, or they delude themselves that they don't care (which is worse) about the fact that if we don't fix the world in time, millions of people (at least) will die early. The holocaust deniers merely insult the memory of the victims of the worst crimes in modern history. Climate change deniers will cause millions of early deaths. They are WORSE.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Downvoted. This post is completely ad hominem. It's also easily shown wrong by a quick perusal of Cato's web site. The statement "They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry" is obviously false, because they clearly publish about all sorts of regulation, foreign policy, etc. One couldn't even say they're Conservative shills (not that this post did), because they also seem to favor gay rights and decriminalization of marijuana. But none of this says anything, one way or the other, about the veracity of the OP, or the utility of its thesis.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    I don't think the content of the Cato's website is going to be a convincing argument to someone that thinks they are a PR firm. ;)
  - antipaganda 17y ago
    I stand corrected, since I mixed up the Cato institute with the Heartland institute. I'll take my brain out back and shoot it later.
  - antipaganda 17y ago
    I stand corrected, since I mixed up the Cato institute with the Heartland institute. I'll take my brain out back and shoot it later.
anigbrowl 17y ago
In this case, the fact is that they have arrived at questioning the availability and integrity of one dataset (which is not the entire basis for theories of climate change) only after years of empty rhetorical or scientifically absurdist arguments. It's like being told that 'true scientists are open to new information, you are too close-minded' by an astrology advocate. Astrology buffs love using this argument, for the same reason they love the poster of Einstein with his tongue sticking out and the caption 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. That does not mean they like science.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  I counter your "astrology" analogy with my shiny "polywater" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater ) analogy. :) More seriously, it seems clear that a well-informed layman might have any of the following opinions: global warming is both happening and is greatly exacerbated by human production of carbon dioxide, global warming is (or was until very recently) happening but is not greatly affected (so far) by human production of carbon dioxide, or global warming is happening (or was until very recently) but it's unclear to what degree humans have exacerbated it. Some opinions which do not appear to be well-informed are: global warming is happening and humans caused it all, global warming hasn't happened in historical times, global warming has already produced temperatures which are higher than any in history, or global warming is unstoppable unless we act this month, year, or decade. Neither of those are exhaustive lists, of course. Part of the problem here is that this discussion has become so politicized that facts that don't fit the positive assertions of the various factions are simply ignored or assumed to be unproven (or even fabricated). Additionally, everyone pushing for a viewpoint seems to have something to gain from their preferred viewpoint, from skeptical geologists funded by oil companies to academics who want grants to study climate from the government under the approved legislation-supporting view. Faced with this, what are we to make of these choices?

brazzy 17y ago

The thing is: he's not saying "this particular piece of research seems questionable" - he's saying "because this particular piece of research seems questionable, measures based on it and lots of other, better sources should be reconsidered". It is in fact quite similar in style to holocaust deniers (you brought that up, not I): look through the other side's data carefully, find the weakest parts and make a big show of proving those false and conclude that therefore it must all be lies. (And yes, the holocaust deniers often go one step further and just make stuff up) In real science, you try to disprove the other side's strongest arguments, not their weakest ones.

randallsquared 17y ago
Actually, from what I remember, holocaust deniers tend to make up stuff out of whole cloth, both for their arguments and against (for easier demolishing, see). Maybe they look at actual evidence now, but I haven't paid attention in years. In any case, I really have no idea whether the data in question was critical to the argument that climate is warming faster than it was earlier (since pretty much everyone accepts that significant global warming has been going on since at least the 1700s; the arguments are in the causes and details), but I just object to the hammering of the "deny", "denial", "denier" refrain.

antipaganda 17y ago

The Cato Institute is not participating in the worthy, rigorous, hard-nosed scrutiny that underpins any real science. They are a PR firm disguised as a think tank. They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry. They are called deniers, and derided alongside Holocaust deniers, because their actions are base and foul. They, and others like them, will cause millions of deaths from environmental upheaval in the 21st Century. Millions of deaths that could have been avoided had we worked together and put aside our political differences. Climate skeptics are the ones to laud for their bravery in the face of scientific consensus. They are the ones that evaluate every result, every harebrained theory, every scientific paper on climate change, and shoot it down in flames if it doesn't add up right. They are invaluable. However, unlike the deniers, they accept results that go against what they previously believed. They are quite willing to change their minds if they see good evidence to do so, like any intelligent human adult. Deniers, though, have no reasons beyond self-interest or madness. They simply deny everything, based on lies, speculation, half-truths, false appeals to common sense, and any more underhanded methods. They don't care, or they delude themselves that they don't care (which is worse) about the fact that if we don't fix the world in time, millions of people (at least) will die early. The holocaust deniers merely insult the memory of the victims of the worst crimes in modern history. Climate change deniers will cause millions of early deaths. They are WORSE.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Downvoted. This post is completely ad hominem. It's also easily shown wrong by a quick perusal of Cato's web site. The statement "They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry" is obviously false, because they clearly publish about all sorts of regulation, foreign policy, etc. One couldn't even say they're Conservative shills (not that this post did), because they also seem to favor gay rights and decriminalization of marijuana. But none of this says anything, one way or the other, about the veracity of the OP, or the utility of its thesis.
- Confusion 17y ago
  I don't think the content of the Cato's website is going to be a convincing argument to someone that thinks they are a PR firm. ;)
- antipaganda 17y ago
  I stand corrected, since I mixed up the Cato institute with the Heartland institute. I'll take my brain out back and shoot it later.
- antipaganda 17y ago
  I stand corrected, since I mixed up the Cato institute with the Heartland institute. I'll take my brain out back and shoot it later.

anigbrowl 17y ago

In this case, the fact is that they have arrived at questioning the availability and integrity of one dataset (which is not the entire basis for theories of climate change) only after years of empty rhetorical or scientifically absurdist arguments. It's like being told that 'true scientists are open to new information, you are too close-minded' by an astrology advocate. Astrology buffs love using this argument, for the same reason they love the poster of Einstein with his tongue sticking out and the caption 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. That does not mean they like science.

randallsquared 17y ago
I counter your "astrology" analogy with my shiny "polywater" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater ) analogy. :) More seriously, it seems clear that a well-informed layman might have any of the following opinions: global warming is both happening and is greatly exacerbated by human production of carbon dioxide, global warming is (or was until very recently) happening but is not greatly affected (so far) by human production of carbon dioxide, or global warming is happening (or was until very recently) but it's unclear to what degree humans have exacerbated it. Some opinions which do not appear to be well-informed are: global warming is happening and humans caused it all, global warming hasn't happened in historical times, global warming has already produced temperatures which are higher than any in history, or global warming is unstoppable unless we act this month, year, or decade. Neither of those are exhaustive lists, of course. Part of the problem here is that this discussion has become so politicized that facts that don't fit the positive assertions of the various factions are simply ignored or assumed to be unproven (or even fabricated). Additionally, everyone pushing for a viewpoint seems to have something to gain from their preferred viewpoint, from skeptical geologists funded by oil companies to academics who want grants to study climate from the government under the approved legislation-supporting view. Faced with this, what are we to make of these choices?