Dear John,

«Yes, they do. But they’re not rejecting it because its origins are morally repugnant.»

OK, you are right, I suppose most nuclear-objectors do so because they believe that the outcome is likely to be horrendous, so that is not a good counter-example, but if you stick to your earlier statement that "we can’t reject knowledge or technology based purely on their origins if those things can be used for good", then hey, another counter-example could be of someone rejecting nuclear energy because it was predicted by Einstein who was Jewish. Foolish, yes of course, but why impossible?

I was initially intending to use myself as a counter-example to your statement, but then I dropped that idea, noting the requirement that the knowledge/technology in question could be used for good. Assuming, however, that [unlike myself] you think that knowledge about global-warming can be used for good, do you still consider my repugnance and subsequent choice to disengage from it all, to have been impossible?

Whether you believe me or not, of course I was repugnant on hearing about Margaret Thatcher bribing scientists to produce the results she looked for, punishing those who contradicted it, and forging the signatures of others, without their knowledge or consent, on the results she wanted. Is that unreasonable?

You may claim that what I heard was a conspiracy, OK, I cannot comment on it because I did not trace or revisit these sources since, but that cannot change the fact that I believed what I heard at the time.

Mind you, with the perspective of time and benefit of hindsight, if I were to make that decision to disengage from it all today rather than over 15 years ago, then I would probably base it on the future rather than on the past.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«No, global warming was still the consensus and was still backed by a wealth of data.»

I heard otherwise, but this is not something I researched or wish to research. The fact is that even much more recently, the original proponents of global-warming were not too happy that warming would indeed be global and therefore decided to call it "climate-change" instead, so where does that leave this "wealth of data"?

«No, it’s a natural phenomenon with political implications.»

That is the propaganda that governments and supporters try to hammer into us. Eventually, if they could, they would also burn those who refuse to agree with them like witches at the stake.

I obviously am not in a position to comment about the suggested natural phenomenon while refusing to study the topic, but in any case, the political implications are far more severe than any rise in temperatures and sea levels, loss of polar bears, etc.

Myself, I normally avoid that topic which regretfully you are forcing me to address, I am not interested in it, nor have I any influence in the matter anyway: I try not to mention it socially, but that doesn't seem to suffice for the climate-change mob because what the regimes want is subservience and will not be content until everyone joins their hysteria. They don't even mind it when cult-members fly over to Spain for a climate-change-conference, burning heaps of fossil fuels up in the air as they travel, but they are furious when I sit peacefully at home burning almost no fuel, but disrespecting their ideology.

Discussions such as this thread are a clear yet totally disregarded indicator of the abject failure of the direction of education. Pumping people full of information when they clearly don't have the mental ability to absorb is multiple times more destructive than no education.
The problem is that these non-absorbing types are the ones in authority hence society's spiralling towards the inevitable !
Average village idiots are making more sense than these "educated" types !

Yuyutsu,

You’re presenting a hypothetical argument about someone rejecting nuclear energy because Einstein was Jewish, but that’s a complete distraction. We both know this would be irrational, and it does nothing to counter my point about rejecting knowledge or technology based on its origins. If a technology or scientific finding can be used for good, it should be judged by its merits, not by who contributed to its development.

As for your own choice to disengage from the global warming discussion, you’re admitting that your decision was based on hearsay and speculation about Thatcher’s alleged actions, which you acknowledge you haven’t even made an effort to revisit or verify. So, even if your repugnance at the time was understandable, basing an ongoing refusal to engage with climate science on a 15-year-old belief that you’ve never verified is, at best, intellectually irresponsible.

You’ve made it clear that you don’t want to research or discuss climate change further. However, dismissing the renaming of 'global warming' to 'climate change' as some kind of attempt to dodge the data is just another furphy. The term 'climate change' is more accurate because it encompasses the broader effects of global warming. It wasn’t about hiding the truth; it was about refining the terminology to reflect the reality of what’s happening.

Your disengagement from the topic reads more like a refusal to confront the reality of climate science than the result of a lack of influence in the matter. (How many other topics do you debate and discuss despite having no influence on them?) You continue to use conspiratorial and paranoid language, by claiming that the big boogeyman regimes are demanding subservience and painting those concerned about climate change as part of a 'cult.' These are not arguments - they are emotional reactions to a topic you’ve chosen to avoid.

At the end of the day, calling the science of climate change 'propaganda' while admitting that you refuse to study it isn’t a stance rooted in facts. It’s simply an excuse to disregard something that challenges your worldview.

«We both know this would be irrational»

Of course, but one counter-example is sufficient whether the character(s) in it behave rationally or otherwise. There could also be other examples where they do behave rationally.

«If a technology or scientific finding can be used for good, it should be judged by its merits, not by who contributed to its development.»

That is a new claim.
The fact that it CAN be used for good, ignores the more likely probability that it will be used for evil.

Also, just to correct a potential misunderstanding, my decision to reject and disengage was not based on WHO contributed, not on the person (Thatcher may have done many good things in other areas), but on my refusal to benefit from the fruits of wrongdoing.

«basing an ongoing refusal to engage with climate science on a 15-year-old belief that you’ve never verified is, at best, intellectually irresponsible.»

It was neither verified nor unverified.
Actually, even when I did mention Thatcher's actions in the past as my basis for refusing to engage, all I got in response by climate-change supporters was "but new evidence [about climate-change, not about Thatcher's actions] has emerged since", a complete avoidance.

«The term 'climate change' is more accurate because it encompasses the broader effects of global warming.»

Maybe, maybe not, I won't get into it.
But what it shows, is that the "consensus" (if indeed there was such) which you claimed existed even before Thatcher's war on the coal-unions, was not based on solid grounds.

«Your disengagement from the topic reads more like a refusal to confront the reality of climate science»
+
«At the end of the day, calling the science of climate change 'propaganda'»

No, it is you who calls climate-change a science.
I am not referring to science, but to politics, very dangerous politics at that.
If indeed there are scientists who genuinely want to know about climate - genuinely, not because they seek grants, promotions or fame, then we could call their work "science", and that I am not rejecting, just let them keep the results to themselves.

Yuyutsu,

Your counter examples - rational or irrational - are all irrelevant for the reason I have mentioned three times now.

//That is a new claim.//

No, it’s implicit in what I’ve now said three times.

//The fact that it CAN be used for good, ignores the more likely probability that it will be used for evil.//

This spurious probability of yours is mere speculation.

//… my decision to reject and disengage was not based on WHO contributed, not on the person (Thatcher may have done many good things in other areas), but on my refusal to benefit from the fruits of wrongdoing.//

I realise this. But you’re still using a computer, which suggests to me that you’re not telling me the real reason.

As for these people you encountered in the past, whether or not they directly addressed your claim about Thatcher doesn’t absolve the responsibility to engage with the data we have today.

Again, your refusal to revisit this issue for 15 years means you’re stuck in a past narrative . The scientific consensus has grown stronger, and regardless of what Thatcher might have done, the evidence supporting human-caused climate change has been rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and independently confirmed by thousands of scientists worldwide.

Basing your refusal to engage on an unverified belief from years ago is still intellectually irresponsible because the scientific debate has moved on, and so should any honest inquiry into the topic.

//… what it shows, is that the "consensus" (if indeed there was such) which you claimed existed even before Thatcher's war on the coal-unions, was not based on solid grounds.//

No, the shift in language reflects the evolving understanding of climate science, not a lack of consensus.

//No, it is you who calls climate-change a science.//

No, I call it a phenomenon. It’s the study of it that is a science.

And why should the scientists keep the results to themselves? It seems your use of computers isn't the only area in which your concern for ethics is tossed out the window when it suits you.