In his 1959 Rede Lecture, CP Snow suggested that the Two Cultures of Scientific and Humanities studies were failing to communicate. This has now progressed into a very public and open conflict between those representing scientific conclusions and the socialized perspectives held by those representing humanities

The socialization advocates promote the abandoning of the idea of science as a separate domain of activity and enquiry, they promote that science must be understood not as a means of acquiring objective general truths about the world but simply as another for of social behavior, They further postulate that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power relations that result in the emergence of consensus and not in terms of advances in understanding, in logical consistency or correspondence with external reality.

Now where have we heard that before?

It is hard to imagine any more monumental example of the socialization of science than that of AGW. By thrusting one of the most complex scientific debates imaginable into the public domain we have seen the proselityzation of pseudo-science (socialized science) adopted by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of members of the public. So powerful is this adoption of someone else’s opinion that the level of self indoctrination has taken on religious fervor for many.

Sorry thinker 2, you may be well educated but sadly not intelligent enough to avoid gullibility.

You’ve be had mate!

Merry Christmas.

So some clown wants to explain skeptics reasoning.

Surely it would be better, & much more challenging to try to understand how warmests can fool themselves with a pile of gobbledygook which has been disproved so many times, it's getting very boring for those who can think, & want to help them.

On the other hand spindoc, it's also possible that vested interests drive the denialist campaigns. Perhaps CP Snow's (whom I am not familiar with) lecture, may have been making a point that was relevant in 1959. But back then information was much more readily available to the man on the street than it is now.

About the subject of gullibility. Is it possible that with more technology comes less information ?.

An example, in the 1960's it was possible to witness real war on television. This helped a person form a true an accurate understanding of such events. The true horror of it informed people, resulting in majority views that were anti-war. Invading someone else's country for any reason was once frowned upon, an absolute last resort. Now we have embedded journalism. Now we have video games depicting glorified mass destruction. Now we decide how we will do it (invade), not will or won't we.

Gullibility would have to be on the increase spindoc, if that is the point your making, but media driven populist viewpoints such as climate change denial brought to us by vested interests on TV etc, do not represent truth or news either, and when one lacks education from being insulated from truth throughout your lives as the young have lived today, it must be hard to understand the concept of gullibility, let alone spell it without a spell checker.

I personally, would never caste aspersions on another person's intelligence as a debating point spincoc, nor wish the lofty mandate of being a person required to make judgement on the intellect of another, but I would profess to a view, "that as time goes on people will become less informed, be less educated, be less exposed to reality, be more exposed to propaganda and spin, and with that be more susceptible to gullibility".

I can only observe this process spindoc and speak out about it, because it is the young that will live the consequences of it.

Anthonyve, you write in reply to Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 December, the usual list of authorities of climate science and find it impossible to contemplate that they may all be working with a common purpose.

You write - "One[sic] the one hand we have your assertion that climate scientists around the world, NASA, the militaries of all the developed countries, (including the US Joint Chiefs), all the world's meteorological Societies, The CSIRO, The chief scientists of all the worlds's[sic] developed countries, the world's leading universities - all of these folk are engaged in this collosal[sic] deceipt[sic]."

Has it not occurred to you Anthonyve, that the agencies of this often flaunted list have mostly a common denominator?

All these bodies are government agencies or are government funded. Do you not see that?

They are not free agents to do as they wish. They are given directives by delegates of governments to carry out certain functions and to deliver results, which are scrutinised by those governments. Governments in return recognise faithful servants and reward them appropriately with laurels, promotions and remuneration. Government authorities and agencies tend to provide governments with what they want.

In particular, military authorities such as the US Joint Chiefs are required to do exactly as they are directed. They must carry out the instructions of their masters by decree of legislation. To not do so is called mutiny. They certainly can't run off and do what they like. They do what they're told to do and nothing else.

When these factors are taken into consideration, what you are left with is government authority, who, as it turns out, are the very ones eager to raise new tax regimes, new trade-able commodities and create global power structures.

Doesn't this ring any alarm bells for you Anthonyve?

No?

Perhaps that's an example of Thinker's gullibility?