Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why does climate change “denial” matter in a “post-truth” society?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Clare Foran at Atlantic:

The entrenchment of climate-science denial is one of the ways the United States appears to be exceptional relative to the rest of the world. A comparative 2015 study of nine conservative political parties in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain concluded that “the U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.” Meanwhile, Americans were least likely to agree that climate change is largely the result of human activity in a 2014 survey of 20 countries, including China, India, Australia, and Great Britain.

Scientific reality does not seem to have escaped the distorting influence of political polarization in the United States. A paper published in Environment earlier this year suggests that as the Tea Party pushed the Republican Party further to the political right, it helped solidify skepticism of man-made climate change within the GOP. That happened as the Tea Party incorporated “anti-environmentalism and climate-change denial into its agenda,” the authors write, and subsequently became part of a broader “denial countermovement” made up of fossil-fuel companies as well as conservative think tanks and media outlets.More.

Clare Foran, meet Julie Shaw: A scientist on the benefits of a post-truth society

I’m a factual relativist. I abandoned the idea of facts and “the truth” some time last year. I wrote a whole science book, The Memory Illusion, almost never mentioning the terms fact and truth.

It’s probably old-fashioned of us to think that only one of you can be right…

Unless, of course, human-caused global warming happens to be the one bee allowed to buzz around in an empty bonnet…

If so, don’t get out of breath running around looking for others to blame when your concerns tend to get written off.

See also: Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Sev, "It depends on whether AGW denial is based on reasonable doubts about the weight of evidence . . ." Evidence for what Sev? Facts? Truth? If facts and truth do not matter, why does evidence matter? They matter only if Shaw is wrong.Barry Arrington
December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Although there are many excellent critiques of the pseudo-science of Catastrophic global warming on the web,,, for instance,,
WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/
,,, Here is a different critique of Catastrophic global warming from another angle. i.e. From the angle of 'fine-tuning':
Extremely Stable, Fine Tuned, and Rare, Atmosphere of Earth contradicts claims for Catastrophic Global Warming (December 2016) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nrm-on-the-climate-alarmists-unspoken-goldilocks-fixation/#comment-622196
As to Sev's comment "Dismissing it (Darwinian Evolution) as the self-serving fantasy of some “old Brit toff” is not. Actually, Darwin himself admitted that “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.”
Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012 Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,, And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,, For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html
bornagain77
December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
It depends on whether AGW denial is based on reasonable doubts about the weight of evidence in favor of the claim or on an instinctive distrust of "elites" - of people who are not seen as "one of us". Having doubts about Darwin's original theory because he was not able to provide an adequate mechanism of inheritance was reasonable. Dismissing it as the self-serving fantasy of some "old Brit toff" is not.Seversky
December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply