10 January 2013

Sceptics vs. Deniers: What Would a Scientist Do?

Science is impossible without a healthy scepticism, along with a voracious appetite for data -- and data transparency. Climate sceptics, for example, demand a higher level of evidence to support "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," before the energy industries of advanced nations are turned on their heads, and before many trillions of dollars are forcibly redistributed from advanced nations to the emerging and third world nations -- using the United Nations and the IPCC as intermediaries in the redistribution of these funds.

Skepticism is generally viewed as a reluctance to believe in something. Skepticists demand evidence, and cold hard facts that can be tested and retested.

The reason that science is so trustworthy is the level of evidence that is demanded before an idea is accepted as truth, and even then, scientists must be willing to reexamine their fundamental ideas. _Answers

Climate science has been infiltrated by political interests, who support the catastrophic alarmist attitude toward climate -- and who urge a rapid and precipitous disruption in energy industries, along with a massive transfer of funds from productive nations to non-productive and politically connected entities.

Other sciences have likewise been infiltrated by political activists, who wish to declare the science "settled" long before the debate has even begun, or the data collected. The field of genetics and human behaviour, the study of gender differences, and the study of human biodiversity (HBD) in general, have all been caught and hamstrung in the web of politically correct corruption.

Here is how you can tell the difference between a healthy scientific "sceptic," and a corrupt "denier" of a political activist: The sceptic wants to open up scientific enquiry, in order to learn as much as possible about the topic. The denier, in contrast, wishes to shut down any free enquiry into the question, and declare the matter settled.

The distinction is easily made. And it is a crucial distinction to make, in this age of politically correct corruption of the scientific process by political interests -- extending well into both governmental and private funding agencies of science.

Does the group or individual wish to open the question to all honest investigators, or is the intent to shut down all honest and open investigation?

It doesn't matter if the person or group calls himself or itself "sceptical" or not. Judge them by their actions. Do they promote free and open enquiry, with complete data transparency and availability? Or do they want to close the debate decades before the necessary data can be compiled and analysed?

Only a complicit news media and a thoroughly dishonest political regime and academic regime could keep pseudo-scientific hoaxes such as carbon hysteria and climate alarmism, alive.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Lime Lite said...

Nothing must get in the way of the agenda. If that means lying, manipulating and being hypocrites, then all the better. Take Al Gore for example. How many years has he told all his little followers that the Earth is warming due to man-made emissions? He even lied in his Nobel Peace Prize film 'An inconvenient truth'. He has lectured us about having fewer children (he has 4), about not flying (he flies all over the place), about living within our means (he has several mansions, emitting tons of 'emissions') etc. He doesn't walk or bicycle anywhere - he gets driven around. His houses don't have solar panels. And the public have lapped this crap up for years, making him a multi-millionaire. And then, to top all of that hypocrisy off, he sells his stake in Current TV to his biggest foes - Big Oil, for millions of evil dollars, and for which he tried to pay less tax on, after only a few short months ago lecturing us that we all gotta pay our fair share! You really can't make this stuff up. And mark my words - his progressive Greeny followers will find a way to justify his blatant hypocrisy. He'll be forgiven in the spirit of the 'bigger cause'. And if it means backing scientists who lie to prove global warming, then a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do.

Thursday, 10 January, 2013  
Blogger Sojka's Call said...

Lime Lite - you are using ad hominen

Thursday, 10 January, 2013  
Blogger Lime Lite said...

Ah cute - a liberal trying to be smart. Instead of refuting what I've written about the HYPOCRISY of Al I-Take-Big-Oil-Money Gore, I need to refute his argument? Is that what you're telling me? So, which argument would you like me to refute? That the earth has not warmed in the last 16 year? That carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? That global warming come climate change is a complete fabrication, supported by dodgy 'science' and manipulated data? That EVERY IPCC prediction has been shown to be false? Please do tell me what you'd like me refute - I would love to shove the facts down your ad homineM throat.

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger al fin said...

My understanding of the ad hominem fallacy is that it is used to distract attention from the argument to perceived personal weaknesses of the opponent.

Lime Lite explicitly set his discussion of Al Gore aside from the main argument with the phrase, "for example." In other words, rather than an ad hominem fallacy, LL was using AG as an example of someone who hides behind an agenda for personal gain.

The basic underlying argument was in regard to the approach to science taken by healthy sceptics, vs. the approach to science taken by true, confirmed, closed-minded believers. The basic argument had already been made in the article itself. LL was merely providing a human interest aside, purely for the information of anyone who might be interested.

All commenters should keep in mind the relatively opaque nature of idea exchange on the internet. It is easy to misunderstand one's meaning in the absence of the sound and rhythm of speech, and the tell-tale signs of wry facial expressions.

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger Bruce Hall said...

Al Fin,

You're just a dumb f--- who refuses to see the obvious fact that thousands of scientists from all scientific fields, including political scientists, all agree that CO2 is a poisonous pollutant that will kill all life forms with its heat-capturing and multiplying capabilities unless you change your thinking now. That's why so many real scientists, who would never challenge the wisdom of the IPCC, won't share their data with the retard likes of you who would misuse and abuse the data which, by the way, has been carefully adjusted to the reality of the elegant CO2 global warming theory.

Why don't you just admit that we have the truth and the truth will NEVER change! You're just looking for any excuse to cause trouble despite the certainty that New York will be under water by the end of this century.

Now, I suppose you'll say that this was one of those ad hominomi attacks when it was fully rational and supported by as much data as a pea-brain like you could absorb.

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger al fin said...

Bruce: Well, when you put it that way, how can I refute anything you say?


Sadly, that is the level of much of the argument that you caricature.

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger Lime Lite said...

@Bruce Hall - ah cute, another brain-dead tin-foil believer. If you want to call people dumb f---'s then take a look in the mirror. Thousands of scientists? You mean the few who took a poll on a dodgy question which didn't make sense, and which then they used to 'prove' 97% consensus among scientists that man-made global warming was real? You mean those scientists??? And for you to even write that scientists will 'not share their data' because people like you would misuse or abuse the data, just shows how thick you are. That is how scientists prove things, idiot. They show their data and their method for collecting it - otherwise geniuses like you could SUCK IT OUT OF YOUR THUMB. WHEN scientists refuse to show their data it means only one thing - it's rubbish data. Go grow a pair and when you're done come back and act like an adult. When people like you think that NY will be under water by the end of the century when water levels have risen less than 1mm per year, then you need help. Maybe Al Gore can help you pay for a few sessions at your local loony bin?

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger al fin said...

Lime Lite: This is what I meant in the earlier comment about not being able to detect when someone is having you on, on the web.

Both Bruce Hall and Sojka's Call have been repeat commenters here over the years. I can attest that Bruce Hall's comment was meant as "tongue in cheek," and thoroughly facetious.

Sojka's Call's comment was too short to be certain of any possible deeper intent or subtext, but his comments are typically thoughtful and evocative, and not heckling.

I can guarantee that Bruce Hall does not expect NYC to be underwater by the end of this century, unless the planet is hit by a large -- but not too large -- asteroid.

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger Sojka's Call said...

I actually agree with everything Lime Light said about Gore - I just thought the personal attack on Gore (even though i did notice the "for example") detracted from AF's basic argument and actually gives the libs a reason to discount what was written. AF - nice moderating of your audience!

BTW, I used ad hominen since I thought the personal attack on Gore and linking him with AGW fit this definition.... "ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument". None of LL's arguments talked to AGW.

For the record MR LimeLight, I do not subscribe to AGW theories. I also find people that threaten bodily harm over the internet like "shoving facts down my throat" to be silly. Hopefully, you were not really upset and just having fun, otherwise, maybe you should have a nice Scotch and relax.

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger Lime Lite said...

I apologise if I misconstrued the comments. In my defense, I'm just sick and tired of people (especially liberals and the AGW crowd)using emotion and not reason and logic in their attacks on people who don't agree with them. Perhaps people should write sarc/off at the bottom when they're being facetious?

Friday, 11 January, 2013  
Blogger al fin said...

Yes, a sarc tag initiator followed by a /sarc tag terminator might be helpful at times.

But keep in mind that if a person truly believes in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming at this point in time, he is not likely to respond meaningfully to any type of attempt to change his mind -- reasonable or emotional. CAGW and carbon hysteria constitute a modern secular religion for those who have nothing important to think or do. Better than selling crack cocaine on a streetcorner next to a schoolyard, to be sure.

Saturday, 12 January, 2013  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts