The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > On ‘belief’ and ‘denial’ > Comments

On ‘belief’ and ‘denial’ : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 27/12/2012

Further, the doomsayers accuse old-fashioned empiricists like me of being 'deniers' or 'denialists' because we do not accept their faith.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 45
  9. 46
  10. 47
  11. All
Don, I spent the better part of 40 years teaching science, and doing my best to convince my students of the virtues of scepticism, and the relationship of scepticism and science.

I do not think you will find a bigger collection of sceptics than the worldwide cohort of scientists who have added to the vast, interlocked and cross-checked sets of data that make up the models that support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

Anyone who gets a proper science education, at high school or university, knows that hypotheses can be shown to be false, but cannot be shown to be true. In that sense, every scientific theory rests on faith.

In assessing where best to put my faith, I have to examine the balance between the considerable and accumulating evidence offered by the peer-reviewed scientific journals, nearly all of which unequivocally support the idea of global warming, against the evidence offered by thoughtful individuals such as yourself.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the best evidence available: evidence confirming that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and is likely to wreak ecological and economic havoc.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh well, now I hope no one accuses me of being a denier next year after
Julia and Nicol's new speach laws come into affect as I will be
offended and take some of you, and Graham to court.
So there !
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:56:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Don, the test of true intelligence is to be able to hold open in your mind, two completely different possibilities; and give equal weight to both.
I for one cannot say with any degree of certainty, that Co2, a greenhouse gas, is implicated in climate change or warming!
Nor am I able, to say with any surety, it is not!
There is some data or evidence, or a trend line?
Can anyone say with any degree of certainty, it is a product of green house emissions, creating more atmospheric moisture!
Which in turn may be trapping radiant heat?
Or just the sun in yet another waxing phase?
An intelligent man would hold open both possibilities, and likely hope like hell it is the former; given, we can actually mitigate against the former?
When will we have enough evidence, that the former explanation is the correct one, Don?
Probably when we have transitioned through 2C of global warming or an entirely irreversible tipping point, that starts to melt the frozen tundra, releasing as much as three times more greenhouse gas!
Which in turn, will once again raise global temperatures to around 5C.
The last time this scenario played out around 90 million years ago, very nearly all life on planet earth was wiped out!
The world as we know it might well disappear, with as many as two thirds of humanity wiped off the map?
A wise man would likely hold open in his mind, as a real possibility, the latter scenario; given, it would only be history repeating itself!
And indeed, prepare for such an eventuality?
It's is all to easy to follow the tenets of the conformation bias, which both rabid climate change believers and deniers, seem to manifest in spades?
I simply don't know if either camp is right, or way off the mark?
Albeit, the nightly vision in the nightly news of melting tundra, is a bit of a worry.
And ought to mean, we at the very least adopt the precautionary principle, and take out some adequate insurance, surely?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Aitkin,

When you get seriously ill (physically), or, maybe more to the point, when you are told you are urgently need medical treatment although you feel fine, do you disregard medical advice as to what you should do about it, either on the grounds that the true best medical advice (not yet known) would be slightly different (which is almost certainly true), or on the grounds that the recommended treatment is in fact worse than doing nothing (which is very unlikely)?

It's one particular variety of religious nuts who answer yes to this question, whether or not you agree with Prof Lewandowsky's description of them as mentally sick.

So why is it any different with the science of climate change? You seem to be turning reality on its head by suggesting those who accept current scientific knowledge about climate change are like the religious nuts.

If you're not prepared to explain this, why shouldn't I accept Prof Lewandowsky's description?
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:27:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evidence Poirot.

Jeremy, you are obviously beyond intellectual redemption, relying on Lewandowsky who has been revealed for what he is by a succession of damning posts by Jo Nova:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/steve-mcintyre-finds-lewandowskys-paper-is-a-landmark-of-junk-science/

I mean Lewandowsky is a man so bereft of intellectual validity that he derives his own poll alleging climate 'deniers' also don't believe in the moon landing when the surviving members of the moon landings are all sceptics.

You couldn't make that stuff up, and we don't have to when he have arrogant fools like Lewandowsky.

AGW is a faith; there is no evidence, in fact the evidence is against it:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

Every bit of evidence put up to support the AGW religion has either been disproved by scientific principles or by observation. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant fool or a religious crank.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 27 December 2012 11:03:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Regarding the employment of ad homs: I seemed to recall one climate scientist who used to visit this forum listing all the names you called him - so I looked it up.

(He doesn't frequent OLO anymore, as he has better things to do than be insulted by lay science people)

I consider it's worth wasting my last post on this thread today to highlight your hypocrisy.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089&page=0#243978
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 27 December 2012 11:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 45
  9. 46
  10. 47
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy