For Coggins - The Truth About Denial

[_Who Knows]

Interesting Newsweek article about global warming (and the denial of it) here.

I like this part:

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

[_barrelomonkeys]

This is disturbing to me.

Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate.

Thanks for linking the article.

[_barrelomonkeys]

*bump*

[_Coggins7]

Interesting Newsweek article about global warming (and the denial of it) here.

I like this part:

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Who Knows, do you know the difference between the serious adducing of evidence, logical argument, and critical analysis, and the vapid conspiracy theories and apparently baseless accusations of ideologically interested individuals seeking to discredit their opposition without having to actually engage their arguments and evidence?

[_Who Knows]

Interesting Newsweek article about global warming (and the denial of it) here.

I like this part:

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Who Knows, do you know the difference between the serious adducing of evidence, logical argument, and critical analysis, and the vapid conspiracy theories and apparently baseless accusations of ideologically interested individuals seeking to discredit their opposition without having to actually engage their arguments and evidence?

Though I'm not a scientist, I'd like to think I've got a good grasp of those things.

That's why I like that paragraph.

[_Coggins7]

In that case, we really have nothing to discuss, as our perceptions of the world are so vastly different as to make rational communication impossible.

[_Who Knows]

In that case, we really have nothing to discuss, as our perceptions of the world are so vastly different as to make rational communication impossible.

That's fine. I just saw that Newsweek article, and thought of you. I was thinking you might like to point out how/where it's wrong - since it's such a widely read magazine. You know, expose the global warming machine for what it is. But if not, that's ok.

and no, i'm not that naïve to assume that news organizations such as this are independent and free from bias. It's just unfortunate that people like you will automatically dismiss them (for those reasons) even when they make a good point.