How would you characterize this ideology?.
Do your own homework. It’s pretty clear.
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Steven Mosher
you dont understand PMS
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Salvatore del Prete
maybe less topics and more specific.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Steven Mosher
SDI is a good historical case for looking at positions on advocacy.
also a good case for looking at how some scientists used doubt to thwart policy.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Steven Mosher
crap I got monkey points.
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by swood1000
Willard –
Is consensus in free fall?
Your graph of the Gallup Poll question as to when the effects of global warming will happen is consistent with the belief that the effects of global warming will not be significant.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Steven Mosher
more stupid questions
“Would it be possible for a situation like this to arise if the underlying science really were definitive? ”
1.Yes. Science is about evidence, not proof. There will always
be doubt.
2. The existence of doubt tells you nothing about the truth status of a proposition.
“The problem seems to be the introduction of “post normal science,” which tries to make up for scientific inadequacy with the specter of climate catastrophe.”
1. You don’t know what post normal science is.
2. It is principally a DESCRIPTIVE term.
read more.
comment less.
and dont ask dumb questions.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Does anyone understand PMS? If you mention realism, Joshua and the minions will descend upon you. Scientific objectivity gets you a denier/delayer pigeonhole. Instead of post modern, an oxymoron to begin with, why not just stick to soft science versus hard science.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Hugh Whalen
Don’t worry. In fullness of time it will attain the same cult classic status as Reefer Madness and for the same reason.
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Lichanos
Lots of Jews out there named ‘Oreskes’. Don’t know about Naomi herself. Of course, you could go the anti-Chomsky route, and call her a “self-hating Jew.”
I’d say, give it a rest. Her arguments speak for themselves, and her utter lack of intellectual rigor.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by climatereason
Andrew
The pair are not ‘historians’ in the sense it would be commonly understood. They are ‘historians of science’ which is a quite different thing surely?
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/authors.html
If you want to obtain a view of the climate of the past you either seek someone experienced in paleo studies for the distant past, or a historical climatologist for more recent stuff, say the last few thousands of years.
There is a blurring of the time lines of course, but either of these last two categories are quite different to what Conway and Oreskes practice.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by docgee
Thanks so much, Judith, for your intelligent, informed and articulate take on this very contentious and widely misunderstood issue. I too was shocked by the high level of bias and misinformation evident in so many reviews of this unfortunate film (and book) and have commented accordingly online, trying in my own small way to bring people to their senses.
I’ve been posting on the climate issue myself lately and am hoping you can take the time to read what I have to say. I’m not a climate scientist, but, as a social scientist, anthropologist and semiotician, I do have many years of experience with colleagues making unwarranted assumptions based on ignorance of certain fundamental scientific principles.
I’m currently posting on the relation between the “climate change” paradigm and Occam’s Razor, a principle that imo goes to the heart of the issue. If you’re interested, I invite you (and anyone else reading here) to begin with the first post in the (three part) series and move on from there (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2015/03/climate-change-and-occams-razor.html). You’ll find many other posts on the follies of the climate change hysteria, as well as other posts, reflecting my decidedly left-wing views. I am definitely NOT a supporter of big oil, or any other oversized capitalist enterprise, as a cursory exploration of my blog will make evident. Merchants of Doubt does us all a disservice in its crude attempts to politicize this issue even more than it already is. You don’t need to be a conservative to be a critical thinker and see through the hype.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by swood1000
I’m not sure why you asked the question. I already explain the theory.
This would probably be a good time to tell you that I do not always accept your theory.
People trust or don’t trust experts on the basis of how they align those experts into a pre existing ideological taxonomy. this happens when issues are polarized. …The interesting question is why are some scientific issues polarized while others aren’t. With issues that are not polarized, people in general trust expert opinion -such as with GMOs and vaccines.
My argument is that, with respect to Climate Change, people would not align experts into a pre-existing ideological taxonomy if (a) the underlying science were more clear, or (b) the remedy demanded were not so drastic.
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by ristvan
That the CAGW crowd felt the need to turn a bad book into a worse movie indicates to me that they know they are losing/have lost the ‘science is settled’ narrative. Mother Nature disagreed with them. Mechandising doubt about those who have pointed out such really inconvenient truths only reveals their growing desperation.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by David L. Hagen
Such anti-semetic conspiracies will be exposed and set right when <a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/When-A-Jew-Rules-the-World-What-Every-Christian-Must-Know-about-Israel-in-Gods-Prophetic-Plans/" / rel="nofollow">A Jew rules the world</a>
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
Wow.
My local football club, who are about the 100th best supported professional club and play in the fifth division of English football, have probably grossed about the same amount of gate money in their two matches this week as the film has taken in cinemas.
And much though I love my team, I gotta say that this really isn’t much of a recommendation for the movie.
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by wallensworth
test
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Joshua
==> “This would probably be a good time to tell you that I do not always accept your theory.”
It isn’t my theory.
Still doesn’t explain why you’d ask the question. Nit accepting the theory would engender a counter argument, not along a question that suggests you don’t understand the theory.
==> “My argument is that, with respect to Climate Change, people would not align experts into a pre-existing ideological taxonomy if (a) the underlying science were more clear, or (b) the remedy demanded were not so drastic.”
Feel free to argue whatever you want without evidence to support. That doesn’t seem, however, to justify a rejection of an evidence-based argument. Perhaps, instead, you might consider presenting an argument for why the evidence-based theory is wrong.
As with many other polarized and politicized issues, scientific or otherwise, many people formulate opinions without really knowing it understanding the evidence related to climate change. Happens with the majority of “skeptics s well as “realists.” the cultural cognition project does controlled experiments to test the effect of ideology on how people evaluate “expert” opinions. Argue with their research findings, or instead, make arguments by assertion. Your choice. Arguing by assertion is nothing new in these threads. You have a lot of company.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by David L. Hagen
<b>The Real Cause of Air Pollution Deaths - Indoor Cooking Smoke</b>
Naomi Oreskes wasted a major opportunity to highlight the real global environmental problem of indoor smoke. Bjorn Lomborg writes:
<blockquote>Air pollution is the world’s deadliest environmental problem. It kills 7 million people each year, or one in eight deaths globally. 4.3 million of these deaths are due to 2.8 billion people in the developing world who cook and keep warm inside their homes, by burning dung, firewood and coal – filling their living spaces with smoke and pollutants. Indoor air pollution from cooking and heating with open fires is equivalent to smoking two packets of cigarettes a day.
How do we best address this problem?
Providing 50% of these 2.8 billion people with improved cooking stoves – which dispels smoke outside through chimneys and vents, is one effective solution. The stoves are cheap and provide numerous benefits in terms of time, fuel and importantly health. It will save almost half a million lives each year, and avoid 2.5 billion disease days. For every dollar spent we do $10 worth of good.</blockquote>
See the <a href="http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/post-2015-consensus-air-pollution-assessment-larsen" rel="nofollow">Air Pollution Assessment</a> Copenhagen Consensus
With Lomborg's article being reprinted in the China Daily, it probably had more readers than Orsenke's screed.
It also had more action: Subsequently <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10200519254302240?stream_ref=5" rel="nofollow">Lomborg posted</a>:
<blockquote>This could be the biggest public health break-through of the year.
<b>Last century, 100 million people died because of smoking.</b> But this century, if China, India and the rest of the developing world doesn't change the consumption patterns, <b>we could see 1 billion people die from smoking.</b>
That is why, a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/world/asia/china-smoking-ban/" / rel="nofollow">Chinese public indoor smoking ban could be a very good sign.</a></blockquote>
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by swood1000
Still doesn’t explain why you’d ask the question. Nit accepting the theory would engender a counter argument, not along a question that suggests you don’t understand the theory.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you restate the theory?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
