Thread: Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

Originally Posted by WhiteD3

Have a listen. A good explanation of how and why there is still debate on the subject of climate change.

Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies - Science Show - 3 April 2010

I couldn't listen - the audio caused my browser to crash! I took the time to read thru some of the transcript. The transcript, plus the introduction and the comments were instructive.

They noted that the methods used by climate change sceptics are similar to those used by the tobacco industry when arguing against the health risks of tobacco. That may be true, but that does not make climate change scepticism invalid. It is not a valid argument to imply that it is - it is an invalid attempt at guilt by association.

The transcript itself, what I read of it (I couldn't read it all, I don't have the time) was very one sided. There was no real debate, no real challenge to the rather derogatory nature of the comments about climate change sceptics.

The only real challenge came in the comments, where some of the respondents actually made some real and well considered comments about the science that should be the foundation of any theory of climate change.

What is often seen is people claiming that many scientists say this or that, but ignore what other scientists say. That's why debate is necessary. This 'Science' show was noticeably lacking in any real debate. That is why it has little credibility.

Willem

Then Willem, no offence intended, but you've missed the point. The podcast was about what defines a true, balanced debate and the difference between scepticism and denial.

It was not a show about the pros and cons of climate change.

Originally Posted by WhiteD3

Then Willem, no offence intended, but you've missed the point. The podcast was about what defines a true, balanced debate and the difference between scepticism and denial.

It was not a show about the pros and cons of climate change.

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'

This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them.

I am not here arguing for or against anthropogenic climate change. I am saying that by making this a one sided presentation the American Association for the Advancement of Science has left it wide open to being regarded as having little credibility.The only real debate, with different points of view, some of which were well considered, was in the comments afterward.

I could go on, but its time to knock off and go to bed.

Willem

More science less politics required.........and if the general public don't get the science, whose fault is that ?

The people who write most about climate change denial seem to be those who don't wish it to be true, therefore it can't be true. I was earbashed once by a bloke who said climate change wasn't happening because weather records had been kept at his family farm for over 100 years, and no change was apparent. With that kind of scientific rigour he must be right.

Originally Posted by willem

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'

This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them.

I am not here arguing for or against anthropogenic climate change. I am saying that by making this a one sided presentation the American Association for the Advancement of Science has left it wide open to being regarded as having little credibility.The only real debate, with different points of view, some of which were well considered, was in the comments afterward.

I could go on, but its time to knock off and go to bed.

Willem

Sorry Willem, I don't get it. A PhD is just another way of saying that someone has put in the time and the effort to show everyone else that they probably know what they are talking about. Same as a plumber or an electrician having done their apprenticeship.

And same as a plumber or an electrician some are brilliant, some are less so.

And, when you have plumbing problems you don't call an electrician to sort them for you. If you want a qualified opinion about climate change, call a scientist with a PhD in climate change, not one in creative writing.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

...... If you want a qualified opinion about climate change, call a scientist with a PhD in climate change, not one in creative writing.

No, not me, I would ask the opinion of the indigenous people which know very well the ecosystem, look after it better than any graduate with a grant from a big corporation, etc.

Just because the "elite" graduated form some university and come with a special theory that does not mean that they are correct.
Remember that in the universities from the first day the students have to write and say what the lecturer of professor like to hear and from then on they follow that rule.

The arrogance and the strict formation in the universities do not allow to value the opinion of other people which do not have the "qualifications" that the scientific community believe that it is acceptable.

Give me the Australian aborigine’s knowledge to look after the Australian ecosystem any time before some of the blind graduates from some universities.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

Sorry Willem, I don't get it. A PhD is just another way of saying that someone has put in the time and the effort to show everyone else that they probably know what they are talking about. Same as a plumber or an electrician having done their apprenticeship.

And same as a plumber or an electrician some are brilliant, some are less so.

And, when you have plumbing problems you don't call an electrician to sort them for you. If you want a qualified opinion about climate change, call a scientist with a PhD in climate change, not one in creative writing.

My point is that just because one doesn't have a qualification in the field doesn't mean that one can't make a useful contribution. This whole AULRO site is living proof of that! How many of the guys here, though they have no formal training in mechanics, have, through observation and experience, learned a whole lot about their Landys. In some areas they will know more that the trained mechanics, because they focus on their cars and not on many cars.

I know a guy who runs a business as a Jag mechanic. Now he has no formal qualifications in the field at all. But he has learned over the years, and he is always learning. Now sometimes the dealer mechanics come and ask him how something on a Jag works!

So it is with climate change or anything else. Someone with their eyes and mind open who carefully observes and reads can form just as valid an opinion as someone who happens to have a PhD! It might be a bit more limited in some ways, but it might also have a greater depth of insight in others. It is worth remembering that the scientific method is not the only way of acquiring knowledge!

And don't forget that PhDs have their biases just as much as anyone else. A greater level of education does not necessarily translate into a greater wisdom in how the knowledge is applied.

As I said in my previous post, it is an intellectual snobbery to pretend that only those who have been educated by the system can have anything valid to say.

None of this is to say that an education is in itself a bad thing. I know myself it is a very useful thing. But it is not a necessary qualification to make an informed observation on things.

Willem