Climate Change Deniers and the Anti-Science Movement
Here, Neil Degrasse Tyson provides his explanation as to why there are so many anti-science, climate change deniers in our population. As is a common characteristic of intelligent people, he looks inward: Where did we fail? How did we allow so many people to be ignorant as to what science fundamentally is, i.e., a set of tools to understand what is and is not true about the world? Good stuff.
Craig,
Neil Degrasse Tyson,( why do Americans often use all three names?), makes a common set of misconceptions beloved of the smug advocate.
First he stereotypes anyone who dissents from his version of ‘truth’ as a “denier”. This allows him to patronizingly draw a series of unsubstantiated (and inaccurate) conclusions to the delight of his audience of true believers.
Very few people support the concept of an unchanging climate. In fact, the concept of being able to permanently maintain a stable climate by means of human activity is one of the oddest beliefs held by climate activists.
The complexity of issues involved in studying climate change factors are matters of cause, scale of effect, factors yet unknown, and reliability of information for analysis.
The biggest impediment of scientific investigation has been interference from all kinds of interlopers for political, ideological, philosophical, or just plain egotistical reasons. The agenda’s of these interlopers has completely overwhelmed any objective scientific analysis.
All this extraneous activity has alienated an otherwise sympathetic and support general public. Joe Public has grown weary of rabid advocates with bat-shit crazy demands and wild claims.
Unfortunately, it’s scientific investigation which has suffers in all the kerfuffle, since as the tide of public support dissipates, so does the funding.
It’s time to dispense with all the hyperbole, and take a calmer, more objective and scientific analysis, free from all extraneous distractions.
Please accept my apology if this was covered in the talk that I don’t presently have time to review. But I find that too many people are not interested in the tools to knowledge. As such the scientific method, a tool, is of little interest to many. As evidenced by the amount of cheating that goes on both in and out of schools what people want are answers, and the shortest possible route to an answer, even an incorrect but satisfying answer. Even when it comes to religion this may be why fundamentalism is more popular than the other end of the spectrum, mysticism.
I prefer the term “climate change denialist”.
There’s no excuse for someone to have an “opinion” that disagrees with all evidence to the contrary, all data from sophisticated scientific experimentation, and any and all analysis of that data.
Either they don’t know enough to know what they are talking about (in which case they should just shut up and listen to the experts in the field), or they have done research and are well aware that there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the basic mechanism of climate forcing from a buildup of GHGs.
If you are aware of the forcing mechanism, then the only legitimate questions involve minutiae: 3rd-10th digit quibbles about various feedback mechanisms… But there’s no possible misunderstanding that we are indeed warming, it is caused by human activity (primarily the emissions from burning fossil fuels), and it is something that we will make better or worse depending on our choices that we make about the fuels we continue to consume.
There aren’t ANY legitimate questions that bring any of the above into doubt. Every single alternate theory has been thoroughly investigated and thoroughly debunked. To deny it is to pretend a level of ignorance that is mind boggling.
But the denialist camp doesn’t stop there. They continue to repeat their idiot criticisms (for example: see “Marcopolo” above) no matter how many times any of those criticisms are shown to be false. They deny, we debunk, then they repeat that EXACT SAME denial… sounding even more stupid than they did the first time.
That’s why I think they should be called “denialists”. To deny something is usually a stage of grief, or a stage of shock. It’s a passing phase that should quickly shift to the next stage of understanding. For those that cling to the denial with the devotion of a cult… the denial becomes a mantra, or a goal. If the goal of life is to deny, you progress beyond being someone who merely denies because you were told something incorrect by a drug-addled radio personality… you become obsessed with the act of repetition of denial. Your denial becomes an article of faith for you, and anyone who brings forth proof to the contrary becomes an enemy of your faith.
It’s disgraceful, but that’s what these people have become. Completely immune to data, logic, argument, fact… they just wallow in petty excuses – made without even an attempt at justifying those excuses. And that is all they are.
I have more respect for people who believe in alien abductions.
I agree with everything you write here, though it seems that the distinction between “denier” and “denialist” is a very subtle one.
No offense, and not to cut up about a serious subject, but I’m reminded of this dialog from Woody Allen’s “Love and Death”:
Boris (Woody Allen): Sonja, are you scared of dying?
Sonja (Diane Keaton): Scared is the wrong word. I’m frightened of it.
Boris: That’s an interesting distinction.
Good quote.
🙂
To me, the difference is that a denier is just someone who is in a state of denial. A denialist is someone who is devoted to maintaining a state of denial. There’s a difference in focus and purpose.
Ah! I get it.
Craig and Glenn,
Thank you for proving my point.
Do you really imagine that calling anyone who dissents to your particular interpretation of climate change, an “idiot” , ” stupid” or “even more stupid”, is likely to prove persuasive or productive ?G
lenn, this may come as a shock to you, but have you ever considered the possibility that those with whom you disagree may also consider their viewpoints equally valid ?
Did it ever occur to you, that when they repeat their opinions, its simply because you failed to make your case convincingly enough?
Have you ever considered the possibility that simply screaming “You’re an idiot, stupid, denier, heretic” or other abuse isn’t actually “debunking” anything ? (except your own credibility ?).
Sadly, every kind of movement seems to attract intolerant extremist “true believers”. The fanatics inevitably alienate the more moderate adherents and eventually the movement separates into factions, or simply losses any hope of mainstream support.