Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:46 am

Let's examine tactics used to drown out inconvenient facts:
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/06/climate ... dwins-law/
Climate Change and Godwin’s Law
By Rodger A Payne on May 6, 2012


The Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank well-known for its skepticism about climate change, placed the adjacent digital billboard for 24 hours along the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago this past week. For $200, they bought a lot of publicity.

Apparently, though now cancelled, the planned ad campaign was going to place similar billboards with the same message bearing photos of Osama bin laden, Charles Manson, and Fidel Castro.
Subtle, eh?

Indeed, it reminded me immediately of the occasional efforts by like-minded political operatives to link Adolph Hitler and anti-smoking crusaders. A U.S. politician recently ignored Hitler’s views towards tobacco and just linked the Fuehrer directly to modern anti-smoking efforts. West Virginia Senate candidate John Raese said this a few weeks ago:
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com ... of-denial/
Six aspects of denial

I’ve adopted the “Six Aspects of Denial” from Sean B. Carroll’s book “The Making of the fittest”. I regard these as the most common non-scientific objections to the science of climate change. Actually, I will be so bold as to say these six “aspects” are pretty the core arguments of the denial movement.

I hope this framework helps people understands the flawed logic behind the arguments used by the denial movement.

Doubt the science –

Question the motives and integrity of scientists –

Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies –

Exaggerate potential harm –

Appeal to personal freedom –

Acceptance repudiates key philosophy –
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Post by SweetPea » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:35 am

How's it working out so far?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:44 pm

SweetPea wrote:How's it working out so far?
Society down, prognosis not so good.


it's a shame you think it's a joke
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Post by SweetPea » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:25 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How's it working out so far?
Society down, prognosis not so good.

What's the best way to kill this cancer?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:09 pm

SweetPea wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How's it working out so far?
Society down, prognosis not so good.

What's the best way to kill this cancer?
Stop injecting so much greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

After that it get's complicated and that's why we need all the brains and brawn pulling on the oars in the same direction.

PS.
Good new interview with John Abraham, I think this speaks to your question:
Real Pragmatism for Real Climate Change: Interview with Dr. John Abraham
By James Stafford | Tue, 26 March 2013 | at OilPrice.com
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Real-Pra ... raham.html

James Stafford: It is hard to imagine that our industrialization is NOT contributing to climate change in some significant way; still, this message meets with myriad roadblocks when attempting to portray it to a non-scientific public. And politics has hijacked the debate to an extent that has polarized the public. What should the message be, and how should it be delivered? Is the polarization irreversible?

John Abraham: First, the main message is:

1. Humans are causing climate change, we’ve know that for well over 100 years
2. We can do something about it now, with today’s technology
3. If we make smart decisions, not only will we help the climate, we will create jobs, improve national security, and diversify our energy supply
4. Doing nothing about the problem is a choice, with tremendous costs

Now, you are right, what should be a scientific issue has become a political issue. There are a number of reasons for that. It is clear that a lot of money is spent by organizations that want to ensure we do not invest in clean renewable energy or conservation. But that isn’t the entire story.

A major indicator of how people feel about climate science is how they view collective action. Persons who think working together on a shared problem (like energy and climate) can lead to exciting and profitable solutions are much more likely to accept the science. People who reject collective action or government intervention are much less likely to accept the science.

The real tragedy is that many people in this latter category could develop the technologies to lead us into the energy future; instead they have held our country back. We are now at a technological disadvantage and every year we delay taking action increases the future costs to ourselves and our children.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Climate Change and Godwin’s Law

Post by SweetPea » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:23 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How's it working out so far?
Society down, prognosis not so good.

What's the best way to kill this cancer?
Stop injecting so much greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
No no, you know - the cancer in society that willfully denies any urgency.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;