info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are The Climate Change Deniers With No Evidence Just Naturally Gullible?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg Olsson
Jul 8, 2019, 5:25:21 PM7/8/19
to
Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
To dismiss a scientific canon on the basis of evidence that has been
debunked evinces an astonishing level of self-belief
I've often been struck by the way in which people who subscribe to one set
of baseless beliefs are susceptible to others, in fields that are not
obviously related. The internet is awash with sites that explain how the
US government destroyed the twin towers – and how alien landings have been
covered up by the authorities. Many of those who insist that Barack Obama
is a Muslim also believe that sex education raises the incidence of
unwanted pregnancies.
A rich collection of unfounded beliefs is a common characteristic of those
who deny – despite the overwhelming scientific evidence – that man-made
global warming is taking place. I've listed a few examples before, but
I'll jog your memories.
Lord Monckton, whose lecture asserting that man-made climate change is
nonsense has been watched by 4 million people, also maintains that he has
invented a cure for Aids, multiple sclerosis, influenza and other
incurable diseases.
Nils-Axel Mörner, whose claims that sea levels are falling are widely
cited in the Telegraph and elsewhere, also insists that he possesses
paranormal abilities to find water and metal using a dowsing rod, and that
he has discovered "the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks" in Sweden.
Peter Taylor, the Daily Express's favourite climate change denier, has
claimed that a Masonic conspiracy has sent a "kook, a ninja freak, some
throwback from past lives" to kill him, and insisted that plutonium may
"possess healing powers, borne of Plutonic dimension, a preparation for
rebirth, an awakener to higher consciousness".
Now our old friend Christopher Booker reminds us of his membership of this
select club, with a remarkable article for the Spectator:
"I spent a fascinating few days in a villa opposite Cap Ferrat, taking
part in a seminar with a dozen very bright scientists, some world
authorities in their field. Although most had never met before, they had
two things in common. Each had come to question one of the most
universally accepted scientific orthodoxies of our age: the Darwinian
belief that life on earth evolved simply through the changes brought about
by an infinite series of minute variations. The other was that, on
arriving at these conclusions, they had come up against a wall of
hostility from the scientific establishment."
He goes on to list the tiredest old creationist canards, each of which has
been answered a thousand times by evolutionary biologists. How can
distinct species exist if evolution proceeds by gradualism? Where are the
intermediate forms? How could natural selection "account for all those
complex organs, such as the eye, which require so many interdependent
changes to take place simultaneously?" How could it account for changes
across "an improbably short time, such as those needed to transform land
mammals into whales in barely 2 million years?" DNA and cellular
reproduction are "so organisationally complex" that "they could not
conceivably have evolved just through minute, random variations".
He appears to be unaware that these objections have been repeatedly
debunked. He also appears to be unaware of any developments in the science
of evolution since the Origin of Species was published. He maintains that
these objections expose evolutionary scientists as "simply 'believers'
taking a leap of faith", who treat any dissent as a "thought crime". He
compares them to the Inquisition and to Trofim Lysenko: the Soviet
agronomist whose hypotheses were imposed by Stalin as the official
scientific orthodoxy.
His view of evolutionary science, in other words, is in line with his view
of climate science. Indeed, he makes the link explicit:
"We have seen a remarkably similar response from the scientific
establishment to anyone dissenting from that other dominating theory of
our time, that rising CO2 levels caused by human activity are leading to
runaway global warming."
What he's saying is that it is no longer acceptable to tell people they
are wrong. If you knock down the claims of people who can marshal no sound
science to support them, you place yourself in the same category as the
Inquisition or Stalin's thought police.
Sadly he doesn't tell us who the "world authorities" who have destroyed
the theory of natural selection are. In fact he cites no scientist, no
paper, no publication of any kind, except Darwin and the Origin of
Species. We must simply take his word for it that the entire canon of
evolutionary biology, just like the entire canon of climate science, is
not just wrong but a fiendish conspiracy against the public, that those
who reject it are true scientific heroes, and those who defend it are
witch-finders and despots.
Needless to say, some of Booker's fans have swallowed all this and
reproduced his article on their own sites. Piers Corbyn, also a well-known
man-made climate change sceptic, added this comment to the Spectator
thread:
"Superb stuff Christopher. We seem to be having to fight attempts to
impose a new age of religiosity where belief in the 'Official' view reigns
supreme."
So here's a poser. Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for
which there is no evidence naturally gullible? Or does the rejection of
one scientific discipline make you more inclined to reject others?
To dismiss an entire canon of science on the basis of either no evidence
or evidence that has already been debunked is to evince an astonishing
level of self-belief. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, you know
more about this subject (even if you show no sign of ever having studied
it) than the thousands of intelligent people who have spent their lives
working on it. Once you have taken that leap of self-belief, once you have
arrogated to yourself the authority otherwise vested in science, any faith
is then possible. Your own views (and those of the small coterie who share
them) become your sole reference points, and are therefore unchallengeable
and immutable. You must believe yourself capable of anything. And, in a
sense, you probably are.
To dismiss a scientific canon on the basis of evidence that has been
debunked evinces an astonishing level of self-belief
I've often been struck by the way in which people who subscribe to one set
of baseless beliefs are susceptible to others, in fields that are not
obviously related. The internet is awash with sites that explain how the
US government destroyed the twin towers – and how alien landings have been
covered up by the authorities. Many of those who insist that Barack Obama
is a Muslim also believe that sex education raises the incidence of
unwanted pregnancies.
A rich collection of unfounded beliefs is a common characteristic of those
who deny – despite the overwhelming scientific evidence – that man-made
global warming is taking place. I've listed a few examples before, but
I'll jog your memories.
Lord Monckton, whose lecture asserting that man-made climate change is
nonsense has been watched by 4 million people, also maintains that he has
invented a cure for Aids, multiple sclerosis, influenza and other
incurable diseases.
Nils-Axel Mörner, whose claims that sea levels are falling are widely
cited in the Telegraph and elsewhere, also insists that he possesses
paranormal abilities to find water and metal using a dowsing rod, and that
he has discovered "the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks" in Sweden.
Peter Taylor, the Daily Express's favourite climate change denier, has
claimed that a Masonic conspiracy has sent a "kook, a ninja freak, some
throwback from past lives" to kill him, and insisted that plutonium may
"possess healing powers, borne of Plutonic dimension, a preparation for
rebirth, an awakener to higher consciousness".
Now our old friend Christopher Booker reminds us of his membership of this
select club, with a remarkable article for the Spectator:
"I spent a fascinating few days in a villa opposite Cap Ferrat, taking
part in a seminar with a dozen very bright scientists, some world
authorities in their field. Although most had never met before, they had
two things in common. Each had come to question one of the most
universally accepted scientific orthodoxies of our age: the Darwinian
belief that life on earth evolved simply through the changes brought about
by an infinite series of minute variations. The other was that, on
arriving at these conclusions, they had come up against a wall of
hostility from the scientific establishment."
He goes on to list the tiredest old creationist canards, each of which has
been answered a thousand times by evolutionary biologists. How can
distinct species exist if evolution proceeds by gradualism? Where are the
intermediate forms? How could natural selection "account for all those
complex organs, such as the eye, which require so many interdependent
changes to take place simultaneously?" How could it account for changes
across "an improbably short time, such as those needed to transform land
mammals into whales in barely 2 million years?" DNA and cellular
reproduction are "so organisationally complex" that "they could not
conceivably have evolved just through minute, random variations".
He appears to be unaware that these objections have been repeatedly
debunked. He also appears to be unaware of any developments in the science
of evolution since the Origin of Species was published. He maintains that
these objections expose evolutionary scientists as "simply 'believers'
taking a leap of faith", who treat any dissent as a "thought crime". He
compares them to the Inquisition and to Trofim Lysenko: the Soviet
agronomist whose hypotheses were imposed by Stalin as the official
scientific orthodoxy.
His view of evolutionary science, in other words, is in line with his view
of climate science. Indeed, he makes the link explicit:
"We have seen a remarkably similar response from the scientific
establishment to anyone dissenting from that other dominating theory of
our time, that rising CO2 levels caused by human activity are leading to
runaway global warming."
What he's saying is that it is no longer acceptable to tell people they
are wrong. If you knock down the claims of people who can marshal no sound
science to support them, you place yourself in the same category as the
Inquisition or Stalin's thought police.
Sadly he doesn't tell us who the "world authorities" who have destroyed
the theory of natural selection are. In fact he cites no scientist, no
paper, no publication of any kind, except Darwin and the Origin of
Species. We must simply take his word for it that the entire canon of
evolutionary biology, just like the entire canon of climate science, is
not just wrong but a fiendish conspiracy against the public, that those
who reject it are true scientific heroes, and those who defend it are
witch-finders and despots.
Needless to say, some of Booker's fans have swallowed all this and
reproduced his article on their own sites. Piers Corbyn, also a well-known
man-made climate change sceptic, added this comment to the Spectator
thread:
"Superb stuff Christopher. We seem to be having to fight attempts to
impose a new age of religiosity where belief in the 'Official' view reigns
supreme."
So here's a poser. Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for
which there is no evidence naturally gullible? Or does the rejection of
one scientific discipline make you more inclined to reject others?
To dismiss an entire canon of science on the basis of either no evidence
or evidence that has already been debunked is to evince an astonishing
level of self-belief. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, you know
more about this subject (even if you show no sign of ever having studied
it) than the thousands of intelligent people who have spent their lives
working on it. Once you have taken that leap of self-belief, once you have
arrogated to yourself the authority otherwise vested in science, any faith
is then possible. Your own views (and those of the small coterie who share
them) become your sole reference points, and are therefore unchallengeable
and immutable. You must believe yourself capable of anything. And, in a
sense, you probably are.
irishra...@gmail.com
Jul 9, 2019, 12:18:09 AM7/9/19
to
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 5:25:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Olsson wrote:
> Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Global Warming is the biggest bullshit scam ever pulled on the American people and makes Bernie Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling overpriced cookies. Al Gore made $hundreds of millions from this scam. He lived in a huge mansion, drove a convoy of gas-guzzling SUVs and flew around the country in a private jet telling gullible idiots that they needed to turn off their air conditioners, sell their cars and ride bicycles.
> Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Irish Mike
Global temperatures have only risen eight tenths (.8) of a degree centigrade in the last 150 years and the earth was warmer in the middle ages than it is today.
trotsky
Jul 9, 2019, 4:40:00 AM7/9/19
to
Greg Olsson
Jul 11, 2019, 6:46:17 PM7/11/19
to
Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
0 new messages