The conspiracy theorist and the pile of money

submitted by christnmusicreleases from files.catbox.moe

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

There's conspiracy theories. That some people in a room made a plan.

And then there's grand conspiracies. Every researcher in every academic or private research institution in the world are faking climate change.

One is credible. The other is not.

[–]TheJamesRocket 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (27 children)

And then there's grand conspiracies. Every researcher in every academic or private research institution in the world are faking climate change.

A strawman attack. Almost none of the people who are labelled as 'climate change deniers' actually believe this.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

Not exactly. I'm pointing out the difference between a plausible and implausible conspiracy theory.

That aside, the people who don't believe in climate change do most commonly deny the science by saying that the scientific community are all committing academic fraud, in my experience.

How do they approach refuting the scientific consensus in your experience?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

Every researcher

Bullshit.

deny the science

Bullshit.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Precisely ... I think ...

Well, tbh, I'm having some difficulty taking your meaning.

Could you be more plain?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

Not all researchers agree on all things, much less to promote climate change, faked or not.

"Denialism" is extremist rhetoric to shut down discussion about things like exaggerations with the Holocaust narrative or the climate change scam and vaccine skeptics. Authentic science is about open discussion. Everything else is the "scientism" dogma a blind-faith in corrupt "experts", corporations, government, and media - all proven liars for profit$.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Not all researchers agree on all things

Agreed.

much less to promote climate change

"promote" climate change? What's that when it's research?

faked or not.

Faked?

"Denialism" is extremist rhetoric to shut down discussion about things like exaggerations with the Holocaust narrative or the climate change scam and vaccine skeptics.

It's a word to differentiate between engaging in an informed discussion and people just repeating a falsehood without legitimate evidence.

Authentic science is about open discussion.

Yeah but there's limits to how open you should be when there's large groups of amateurs demanding that the facts are wrong.

Allowing flat earthers to talk at a cartography conference is just going to waste everybody's time, and reduce the usefulness of the conference for sharing of advances in the field that have been made.

Similarly, there's no benefit in engaging in a scientific discussion people who claim that the greenhouse effect doesn't work, or that the world's not warming, or the CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Neither is it useful to allow the discussions on vaccines to include the view that vaccines cause autism.

Nor should the WTO or united nations spend time discussing whether the world is run by lizard aliens.

all proven liars for profit$.

Certainly vaccine and climate science denialism comes from Wakefield, who had an interest in a competitor vaccine to the MMR Vaccine and by fossil fuel interests.

But not all reporting of science is manipulation of facts. And nearly no science done by mainstream academic or research institutions is dishonest. You don't progress a career in science very well by being refuted all the time.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

You're shilling like socks.

Try skepticism instead of binary language like "denialism". Be skeptical of all "facts", yours and theirs and everyones.

Vaccines ARE problematic. Pretending they aren't is absurd. Every. Single. Food. Has people who are allergic to it. Why wouldn't vaccines have the same issue? Get real.

Skepticism is not denialism. Check your words.

You don't progress a career in science very well by being refuted all the time.

You don't progress science very well by being a career yes-man all the time.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Vaccines ARE problematic. Pretending they aren't is absurd. Every. Single. Food. Has people who are allergic to it. Why wouldn't vaccines have the same issue? Get real.

People get allergic reactions sometimes. They solicit an immune response, which can bring out underlying issues and initiate an autoimmune disorder.

But they confer immunity to a disease.

None of which I denied above. What I said is that they do not cause autism.

Skepticism is not denialism. Check your words.

I'm not using them as synonyms.

Skepticism is a pro-scientific movement that I strongly support. Some of the highest profile skeptics in the world at the moment contribute to the "Science-based medicine" blog, that has many articles on vaccines. Particularly relevant is Legislatures and litigation: anti-vaxxers continue attacks on COVID mitigation

Denialism is different. It requires flatly not accepting one or many scientific truths, even after having them pointed out.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

But they confer immunity to a disease.

Allegedly. There's no shortage of professionals who are challenging the fundamental presumptions of all this "established" scientism.

Further the "vaccines" they're pushing on the populace are not even vaccines. They are experimental injections that claim to relieve symptoms. Worse is the push for them to be mandatory with absolutely no proof they work nor are effective nor that the lockdown or freedoms are remotely tied to this scamdemic.

If I don't have symptoms then I don't need relief from them. Why take a chance for nothing to gain?

Denialism is different. It requires flatly not accepting one or many scientific truths, even after having them pointed out.

It's good you recognize the difference, however there is a problem with "scientific truths".

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

You commit some hefty errors here.

That aside, the people who don't believe in climate change

The issue in question with most skeptics is not climate change in general, but anthropogenic climate change in specific.

do most commonly deny the science

Why does disagreement equal denial? Why do you conflate these two things?

by saying that the scientific community are all committing academic fraud

Making scientific mistakes is not the same as deliberate fraud. Its not uncommon for scientists to make honest mistakes.

How do they approach refuting the scientific consensus in your experience?

They do so in many different ways. One of the more credible ways they criticise the scientific consensus is by taking aim at the ruling paradigm in climate science. Of course, to understand this critique, you need to be familiar with Thomas Kuhns book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The issue in question with most skeptics is not climate change in general, but anthropogenic climate change in specific.

Yes, that's the climate change that I'm talking about. Primarily the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The increase has been measured quite directly, and the greenhouse effect is well understood.

Why does disagreement equal denial? Why do you conflate these two things?

I don't think I'm conflating them.

Does the flat earth movement disagree that the moon is the other way up when viewed from the other hemisphere? Or do they deny it?

I would say deny is correct in that case. Similarly global warming deniers are disagreeing with the measured increase in atmospheric CO2. (Or that the optical properties of CO2 are not what we know them to be). It's a disagreement that doesn't have a rational basis.

Making scientific mistakes is not the same as deliberate fraud. Its not uncommon for scientists to make honest mistakes.

I agree with that. Depending on how you define "mistakes" they're probably more common than not making a mistake. About 80% of scientific papers on the cutting edge of a new field are refuted within 5 years. But they generally still contain information from which the knowledge of the field grows.

But we've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the fact that it will warm the planet has been known since the late 1800s. The cutting edge of climate science is far beyond "we're making it warmer" now.

One of the more credible ways they criticise the scientific consensus is by taking aim at the ruling paradigm in climate science.

What ruling paradigm is that?

Of course, to understand this critique, you need to be familiar with Thomas Kuhns book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Of course.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But there is a ruling paradigm called common sense. Not much to boast about it aside from two facts:

  • It usually ain't what you expect it to be
  • it is in fact easily derived but beats some of these "common knowledge" observations.

Hence it isn't a thing one can explain. Either you have the sense for it or you haven't.

It is like with these Jedi: Either you know the Force or you don't.

Since we now are in questions of religion i don't expect an answer but thats ok.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But there is a ruling paradigm called common sense.

Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. If you find that common sense rejects that, then your common sense is wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think you got me wrong...

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah sorry.

I'm starting to assume that everyone's a crackpot. To be fair in here it seems kind of likely.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Especially here it isn't. To be honest.