The problem is further compounded by the fact that many people chose what to accept based on whether it conforms to their own pre-conceived notion, accuracy and factuality become irrelevant.
For example, if a post on Watts Up With That stated that natural processes had caused 90% of warming in the last 100 years skeptics would accept this without question. If a similar post on Skeptical Science claimed 90% of the warming was manmade the skeptics would summarily dismiss it. The opposite is true for those who believe global warming is manmade.
There would be no rationality, no objective checking of the facts, no examination of the evidence.
Acceptance or rejection of the evidence for or against global warming comes down to a desire to want to believe something. Once a person has adopted a position (on any matter) they don’t want to be challenged and don’t want to concede anything, hence they look only for things that reinforce that position, being right or wrong has become irrelevant.
It’s only by being honest, rational and objective and concentrating on facts rather than opinions, that an adequate assessment of the science can be made. Some people do this, most don’t.
In the short-term then extremism is bound to discredit climate science, but it won’t affect those who already hold extremist views.
When evidence came to light of the dangers of smoking there was extremism there as well. Some people claimed that smoking a single cigarette would cause the person to become addicted for life and that they’d die an average of 30 years younger.
With both smoking and climate change the science is consistent, this is its strength and why science prevails in the end. It took 60 years for the smoking advocates to finally admit they were wrong but by then they were universally disparaged and vilified.
I think it's already been discredited by the likes of Mann, Jones and Hansen.
Classic human arrogance is what is driving this movement. People like to think that they have control over the Planet. If they can somehow "influence" people that humans have an "influence" on the weather, then they win the sympathy game. It makes them feel good that they recognize and are recognized for their passionate attempt at "saving the world". Classic "touchy-feely" arrogance, but the emotional attachment to an issue isn't science. The typical name-calling here at Y/A is an attempt to make it an emotional issue instead of making it about science. Any information that goes against their "emotional attachment" seems to require insulting someone else's intelligence or character. That's what little kids do when they don't understand and want to have control.
Do you mean Climate Scientists who are pro-AGW "extremists"? Can you provide some examples as I'm not really aware of them except from anti-AGW people in places like this. Thanks.
Yes, and it's not just climate science, the global warming hoax has discredited scientists in general. After witnessing the lies and data corruption in climatology, and the obvious political elements, the logical fallacies and overall McCarthyism, intelligent people will never take scientific studies at face value again.
People now look at the funding and political implications before accepting so called scientific evidence, and usually where there is a political element it doesn't take long to find flaws and contradictory evidence.
In some ways alarmist scientists have done the free thinking people a service by opening up the general population's eyes to the mental manipulation that they are subjected to.
I mean nowadays would for example anyone take at face value research paid for by the likes of Monsanto.
NOO
AGW-Deniers, Creationists and other anti-science extremists, as well as politically motivated scientists like von Storch have already harmed science – and made the US measurably more stupid.
No
Climate science is fueled by extremists on both sides. It's really a divide and conquer subject.
The way to discredit climate science is to point out answers to the problem
Michael reanolds "garbage warrior"
Sepp holzer "Deserts of paradise"
Weather you think carbon tax is good or a scam you can use these techniques to either fix the environment or get out of the system.
Either way you short circuit climate science. Because the extremists want to argue and cry not fix the problem.
I have just read an interesting article from Von Storch himself a climate scientist. http://www.technologist.eu/climate-science-the-shrinking-middle
Some of the points he makes is 'the name calling', and that many feel pressured to support extreme views, while distancing itself from skeptics it has allowed environmental extremists to say what they say with little criticism,
Quote "For climate science, this would mean communicating undisputed knowledge – such as the accumulation of greenhouse gases from human sources and the increase in temperatures and water levels – while clearly outlining the range of hypotheses and conflicting scientific claims.
In other words, it would mean recognising that science can only offer the best possible explanations for the present, never the absolute truth. Society and politics can live with that fact – but for those who want to improve the world, it has always been a sin.
Whats your thoughts on this?
