Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Climate Change Denial To Be A Crime?


Snowy L

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

If that were the case , plenty on both sides of the divide would be in bother, no?

I wasn't aware that Climate Deniers had any information to withhold? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I wasn't aware that Climate Deniers had any information to withhold? :D

 

Well we are only just being fed the reports that had the oil giants alter policy from the late 70's /early 80's Pete so some of the 'oil employed scientists' had raised concerns over the impacts of fossil fuel usage on climate? I know we 'independently' arrived at the same conclusions of their findings but they certainly made no efforts to disseminate the findings for the benefit of the rest of science?

 

Had we been allowed sight of their initial reports would we have consented to the explosion in oil extraction/use  or would we have used the 74' crisis to move into alternative energy sources ( instead of having the Tory Govt. produce a deliberately 'flawed ' paper into alternative energies........ 11 out of 13 scientists involved employed by UKAEA........ yeah! right.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

What "impacts of fossil fuel usage on climate" are they? Things are no different now (maybe a little more benign if anything) from when I was but a boy.

How old are you, then: 300! :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

I find the word "denier" offensive and counter productive to any reasonable dialogue between both camps, just what are they denying other than the magnitude of warming being proposed. As for the headline, well its nonsense really as any such laws would never make it past the first hurdle gladly.

 

I think this is often missed . A 'denier' or 'she be a witch' covers everyone that doesn't believe in the future disaster of man made global warming. If your a moderate or want 30 years more data your still a 'denier'. 

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

I think this is often missed . A 'denier' or 'she be a witch' covers everyone that doesn't believe in the future disaster of man made global warming. If your a moderate or want 30 years more data your still a 'denier'. 

On the contrary, Stew: A 'denier' simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility of that which is under his nose...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Powys Mid Wales borders.
  • Location: Powys Mid Wales borders.

Check this out. I'm not a climate change denier but this is ridiculous.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/philippe-verdier-french-weatherman-question-climate-change

Believe what you want and not let anyone tell you what to believe especially the system is all I say.

The truth will come out in the end when we`re in the next world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

On the contrary, Stew: A 'denier' simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility of that which is under his nose...

 

If you use the word 'possibility' I think we would all be on the same page.

 

Perhaps a denier is someone who questions more ?? , who for example did not believe the world was flat hundreds  of years ago despite all the 'evidence'? We are seeing witch hunts against deniers now, hence this thread.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

Unless y
 

If you use the word 'possibility' I think we would all be on the same page.
 
Perhaps a denier is someone who questions more ?? , who for example did not believe the world was flat hundreds  of years ago despite all the 'evidence'? We are seeing witch hunts against deniers now, hence this thread.

 
The definition of the word deny:
 
deny

dɪˈnʌɪ/

verb



  • 1.


    state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
    "both firms deny any responsibility for the tragedy"

The definition of the word denier:

 

Line breaks: de¦nier
Pronunciation: /dɪˈnʌɪə/ 
 
noun
A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:prominent denier of global warmingclimate change denier
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How old are you, then: 300! :D

 

I'm 54, hence plenty old enough to remember times that most of today's climate change protagonists weren't even around for. Makes you wonder if they actually know what they're talking about, rather than what they're told. If anyone can demonstrate that the weather has changed significantly and,most importantly 'abnormally' across those decades (especially for the worse, as climate change is always about), then I'm all ears. But good luck with that. What's wrong with being a denier anyway? Does it really matter if someone isn't on the train, in the grand scheme of things? Why is it so pressing that no-one remains unconvinced? It has indeed become a witch hunt, I can see the return of the stocks and public floggings in the not too distant future for those of us who refuse to capitulate, as if we have a say or influence, or even a care as to how things pan out.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

If you use the word 'possibility' I think we would all be on the same page.

 

Perhaps a denier is someone who questions more ?? , who for example did not believe the world was flat hundreds  of years ago despite all the 'evidence'? We are seeing witch hunts against deniers now, hence this thread.

 

Actually no that is a skeptic which is what all genuine scientists are.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

Actually no that is a skeptic which is what all genuine scientists are.

 

If someone who wants to publish a book , is he a denier or skeptic ?

 

Most folk now go with big bang theory rather then steady state , is the steady state guy a denier or skeptic its a interesting point. There is a point when the evidence becomes so over whelming but we are no where near that re man made global warming. 

 

The definition of denier has been linked to global warming hence if a genuine sciencist publish a book refuting global warming with peered reviewed evidence they must be by definition a denier not a skeptic.  

 

Clearly science over the centuries has been moved forward by deniers , Earth not centre of universe etc

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

If someone who wants to publish a book , is he a denier or skeptic ?

 

 

Like Lord of The Rings? You've lost me there!! :cc_confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

What's wrong with being a denier anyway? 

 

For me, if someone as a denier is simply sticking their fingers in their ears and claiming that any evidence presented to them is bogus/wrong/rubbish (etc) without being prepared to offer any evidence to back their stance then, that's what's wrong with being a denier. Simply denying the existence of something despite evidence to the contrary, and doing so without any basis other than a loose opinion or untested theory, is hardly a reasonable position. 

 

If being a denier isn't that, then perhaps those who like to label themselves or others as deniers need to find a new name. 

 

And following on from what Knocker mentioned above - science is the process of using evidence to attempt to prove or disprove theories. So, I suppose scientists are in essence sceptics - in that they aren't believing a theory and just running with it, they're using science to try to break the theory, and it's only at the point that they can't that they are satisfied the theory is ok. 

 

If all those involved in the climate debate were to do that, maybe more progress would be made?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
  • Location: Newton in Bowland

For me, if someone as a denier is simply sticking their fingers in their ears and claiming that any evidence presented to them is bogus/wrong/rubbish (etc) without being prepared to offer any evidence to back their stance then, that's what's wrong with being a denier. Simply denying the existence of something despite evidence to the contrary, and doing so without any basis other than a loose opinion or untested theory, is hardly a reasonable position. 

 

If being a denier isn't that, then perhaps those who like to label themselves or others as deniers need to find a new name. 

 

And following on from what Knocker mentioned above - science is the process of using evidence to attempt to prove or disprove theories. So, I suppose scientists are in essence sceptics - in that they aren't believing a theory and just running with it, they're using science to try to break the theory, and it's only at the point that they can't that they are satisfied the theory is ok. 

 

If all those involved in the climate debate were to do that, maybe more progress would be made?

The problem with that though Paul is that we've got prominent climate scientists who also question aspects of the science, i.e. Judith Curry along with a number of others. IMO if a theory is based on solid empirical evidence then it should be robust enough to to take on sceptics who question any aspect of the theory, but when you've also got prominent climate scientists asking these questions and being labelled deniers then something is amiss.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

The problem with that though Paul is that we've got prominent climate scientists who also question aspects of the science, i.e. Judith Curry along with a number of others. IMO if a theory is based on solid empirical evidence then it should be robust enough to to take on sceptics who question any aspect of the theory, but when you've also got prominent climate scientists asking these questions and being labelled deniers then something is amiss.

Sceptics are sceptics; deniers are deniers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
  • Location: Newton in Bowland

I think that's kind of covered above - questioning makes you sceptical, denying the existence of something makes you a denier?

Totally agree but there aren't many sceptics who fall into the latter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

None you'd think, but I've seen some deniers about - including on here. Scepticism (and science) requires an open mind and an acceptance that at some point the evidence in front of you may require you to change your opinions, some people are closed to anything which doesn't match their view and merely seek out 'evidence' which supports it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

So would you class anyone who questions aspects of the science a denier or sceptic?

Questions, a sceptic; refuses even to entertain the idea, denier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

If you deny being a sceptic are you a scepticism denier ?...

Trust you! :rofl:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

The problem with that though Paul is that we've got prominent climate scientists who also question aspects of the science, i.e. Judith Curry along with a number of others. IMO if a theory is based on solid empirical evidence then it should be robust enough to to take on sceptics who question any aspect of the theory, but when you've also got prominent climate scientists asking these questions and being labelled deniers then something is amiss.

 

Judith Curry is a prominent AGW "sceptic", not a prominent climate scientist. If she was a prominent climate scientist she would be regularly publishing climate papers, making new findings and generally pushing the science forward. Instead, she has published one paper of note in the last few years, which was promptly dismissed by most outside of climate denier blogs. Most of her work now goes into her own blog, where she generally follows the AGW sceptic/denier/Republican script like: attacking Michael Mann, promoting other career climate deniers and even supporting theories that go against her previously published work (as long as they're aginst AGW in general).

But every anti-science area has a few scientists on their side, anti-vaccine people have a few scientists of their own, as do anti-evolution, and there are even doctors out there that will still dismiss/deny the links between smoking and cancer.

 

The fact the Judith Curry is prominent in the eyes of AGW sceptics/deniers is more related to the fact that there are very few climate scientists in that camp, so their names get recycled so often it gives the illusion of scientific prominence.

 

 

As for what constitutes a denier, well you don't have to deny every aspect of climatology.

For example, some people here will use the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as evidence of large variations in temperature independent of our fossil fuel emissions, but then completely dismiss evidence that the temperatures we are experiencing now are anything unusual. This is mainly because they don't agree with using proxy data for the older records, even thought the MWP temperatures are derived mostly from proxy data too!

Selectively denying evidence is a big part of being a denier too.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...