Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Mind Matters News: Why many now reject science… do you really want to know? Part 1

Categories
Intelligent Design
Philosophy
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

COVID demonstrated — as nothing else could — that the “science” was all over the map and didn’t help people avoid panic:

Science-sponsored panic probably drove up the damage from COVID. Jay Richards, one of the authors of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe (October 2020), has noted, “In working on the book, we watched social media and platforms such as Google Search manipulate news coverage of the pandemic. It was, honestly, terrifying to watch important stories and studies get buried in real time on Google searches. It was also distressing to watch Twitter and Facebook attach warnings to the advice and viewpoint of scientists who urged calm and caution, while boosting the views of “officials” such as Anthony Fauci and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom.”

And, just as most of the world was getting the impression that the pandemic — and the panic — had largely run their course, up pops a proposal in 2021 for a “reality czar” to fight disinformation and misinformation, as if all of that were coming from non-government or non-science sources. The proposal was (we are told) put on hold after the fear of just consequences prevailed.

News, “Why many now reject science… do you really want to know?” at Mind Matters News (July 17, 2022)

Takehome: As the panic receded, the government started setting up a disinformation board to target NON-government sources of panic, thus deepening loss of trust.


You may also wish to read: Did social media panic drive up the damage from COVID-19? Richards: It was, honestly, terrifying to watch important stories and studies get buried in real time on Google searches. Social media did a very good job of panicking the population about COVID-19, instead of relaying facts, says Jay Richards, an author of The Price of Panic.

Comments
Marfin, one fact of the domain is that climate is defined as a 30 or 33 year moving average of weather. Trivially, climate always changes. The real issue is patterns of change or trends, and their causal drivers. That involves understanding and studying the climate system's dynamics well beyond current and recent understanding. Issues of negative, stabilising feedback, nonlinear system oscillations and phase space attractors, cycles, solar cycles, and human behaviour are all relevant and several are far more open to the pessimistic induction that we would like to imagine. That said, we should be prudent on energy, and I point to geothermal resources, butanol fuel for gasoline engines, various biodiesels, and to pebble bed modular nukes. If fusion can be rolled in not just Tokamak but Bussard polywell, we may have serious breakthroughs. A Bussard drive could put us at the gas giants in 3 months of flight. Solar system colonisation should be the long term vision for this century but too many power seekers hope to profit from a panicked, fear driven, polarised public policy climate. KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2022
July
07
Jul
21
21
2022
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PST
"Global warming is just one measure of climate change, but it acts as a catalyst for other measures of climate change." Indeed. All you have to do is throw the correct catch phrases in a sentence, and you've got a cause to troll religiously for. It's the talking points that JH is devoted to, not scientific inquiry. Andrewasauber
July 21, 2022
July
07
Jul
21
21
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PST
Can all the folks here who accept man made climate change please , state what you know for a fact , not guess, not speculate , not believe , please clearly lay out the actual know facts about climate change.Marfin
July 21, 2022
July
07
Jul
21
21
2022
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PST
The deck chairs nearly always end up in the same place here.
Right next to the tinfoil hat dispenser.JHolo
July 21, 2022
July
07
Jul
21
21
2022
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PST
A lot of deckchairs being rearranged here
No! The deck chairs nearly always end up in the same place here.jerry
July 21, 2022
July
07
Jul
21
21
2022
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PST
Querius: With the heat wave in Europe, do you think the climate ideologists will revert to “global warming” from the “climate change” narrative?
Scientists have never stopped talking about global warming. Increased greenhouse gases ==> global warming ==> climate change. Global warming is just one measure of climate change, but it acts as a catalyst for other measures of climate change.JHolo
July 21, 2022
July
07
Jul
21
21
2022
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PST
Related at 73- How exactly am I promoting fear , as I have said before even if I accept the global temperature has increased 1.5 deg c over the last 150 years what has been the effect on the ground so to speak. Well the earth is greening , we live longer, are healthier , richer , infant mortality has fallen, deaths by climate disasters have fallen 95% so whats the problem , no please tell me whats the problem. My problem with access to the temperature data from satellites etc , is without raw data to allow you to reach a conclusion which someone else can equally get the exact same raw data and also reach a conclusion , without this situation you are not doing science .Marfin
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PST
A lot of deckchairs being rearranged here.Alan Fox
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PST
Relatd at 86, Thank you for the excellent reference. I also read the referenced report: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf The quotes were damning:
“The data centers then performed some final adjustments to the gathered data before final analysis. These adjustments are in some cases frequent and undocumented. Examining raw data versus processed final data shows numerous examples where the adjusted data shows a warming trend where the raw data had little change.”
“He notes there are many iterations of the data sets available from CRU, NOAA and NASA. The differences between them is much greater than the changes over time calling into question our ability to accurately assess climate trends.”
“SHOULD YOU BELIEVE NOAA/NASA RANKINGS FOR MONTH AND YEAR Definitively NO! Climate change is real, there are cooling and warming periods that can be shown to correlate nicely with solar and ocean cycles. You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming the around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated.”
This report followed the one I remembered that plotted out the online versus original paper data. The report you referenced is much more comprehensive. -QQuerius
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PST
Kairosfocus @77,
Q, they call that cooking or fudging, and it does undermine credibility, long term. KF
Exactly. And the fact that science has become science fiction in the service of political ideology, might sound snarky, but this fraud hurts me personally and deeply! It is a massive crime against humanity. I would truly prefer to be able to "trust the science," and I truly loathe having to become a science skeptic. But the flatulent frauds, shameful charlatans, and selfish swindlers that now dominate medicine, climatology, paleontology, nutritional science, public health, and any other science with political utility have poisoned the well of knowledge for all of us. This is grievous to me! Someday, these fools will have to stand before the Judge of All, unable to cover their naked shame with any more lies. There will then be no question what eternal destiny they've chosen and richly deserve. -QQuerius
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PST
Possibly the article mentioned above. https://spaceref.com/press-release/nasa-caught-in-climate-data-manipulation-new-revelations-headlined-on-kusi-tv-climate-special/relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST
"So now what? Assume the worst?" Relatd, In cases where data has value, records are retained/archived. So you can just conclude the data is worthless. Andrewasauber
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PST
Andrew, So now what? Assume the worst? The "bad guys" have gotten away with it? What? I'm sure that a few more people besides those who post here are looking into this.relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST
"So the data is no longer held as paper records?" Relatd, Nope. Records might exist, but their location is unknown. Andrewasauber
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PST
Relatd, often nowadays, no. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PST
Jerry at 78, So? And you appear to be another one when you said the coal was "coming from very liberal Illinois." Make a point. The coal, itself, has no political bias.relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PST
Querius at 75, So the data is no longer held as paper records? Have you looked? Again with "politics." Give people the names of the controllers, or this kind of post does not add anything.relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST
Today, I watched over 200 coal cars cross the Ohio River heading for power plants. Near Paducah, Kentucky. Don’t know origin of coal, but the train was coming from very liberal Illinois.jerry
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PST
Q, they call that cooking or fudging, and it does undermine credibility, long term. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PST
Relatd, Q is implicitly pointing to the pessimistic induction regarding theoretical constructs in the context of climate, and has put on the table some unusual evidence in point. UD is not about what focus tested manipulative sound bite can get the attention of how many people. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PST
Somewhere around 1995-2005, I read an article by a climatologist who complained that historical climate data had been altered. He had previously downloaded the data on his computer and noticed that the published data online was now different. In his article (which I've not been able to find since then), he produced a plot of how much the historical climate data was recently altered for each year ever several decades, having been massaged to show increasing temperatures. Later, I watched a documentary about how historical temperature data was being "adjusted" due to what was claimed to be poorly located recording stations. While I don't doubt that systematic errors were likely, the problem I had was that the adjustments were made *directly to the historically recorded data* rather than indicating the computations and estimates used in making adjustments. These adjustments turned the data into guesstimates of what "prolly musta been" the temperature. Not only is this highly unethical, the methodology used removes any subsequent conclusions from the realm of science and into a world of political fantasy. -QQuerius
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST
Querius at 71, What was the point of all that? Do you think the average person cares about that? Average people are used to getting answers now. Or watching the latest celebrity goings-on. I appreciate the effort but I strongly believe I'm in the minority. In the 1960s, around this time of year, the temperature got to 98 degrees F. We had a small, three foot high pool in the backyard, some watermelon, and a small metal fan by my bed. That's it. In August 1983, it got to 103 F. So no, none of this is "new."relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PST
Marfin at 67, What is "very dangerous"? You promoting fear or your lack of access to satellite data and lack of access to a global network of scientific instruments so that you can check each one? That's what you're saying. Some naively believe the internet as if many of those posting are like family members. They are not. Oh, the internet will "save" us because it's filled with people who will only tell us the truth. I'm very interested in the truth. In facts. I'm a professional researcher who has spent decades learning how to find facts. It doesn't matter what I think beforehand. If I have the documents and the evidence, I can hand them to my employer or use them myself for research in areas that interest me. The internet has muddied the waters. There are still places I can go to, like University libraries, and people I can talk to. Actual people who have the knowledge I need to complete an assignment or further a research goal. The average person assumes a lot due to being trained to accept a lack of actual human contact and actual voice communication.relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST
Querius at 65, Please explain the details of this "experiment." Who initiated it? What was its purpose? Who is controlling access to information? Names and dates please. I suppose you can also tell everyone about new, long-term plans so that the experiments can continue.relatd
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST
With the heat wave in Europe, do you think the climate ideologists will revert to "global warming" from the "climate change" narrative? Considering the fear mongering among some scientists . . . https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/on-this-date-51-years-ago-climate-scientists-predicted-a-new-ice-age-was-coming Oh my! What to do? What to do? Let's turn to Science! 1877 Nathaniel Shaler, American scientist Suggested rerouting the Pacific’s warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise Arctic temperatures as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit 1912 Carroll Livingston Riker, American engineer, and William M. Calder, U.S. Senator Proposed building a 200-mile jetty into the Atlantic Ocean to divert the warm Gulf Stream over the colder Labrador current to change the climate of North America’s Atlantic Coast; Calder introduced a bill to study its feasibility 1929 Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors 1945 Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946–48 Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zones 1958 Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive 1958 M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice 1965 President’s Science Advisory Committee, United States Investigated injecting condensation or freezing nuclei into the atmosphere to counteract the effects of increasing carbon dioxide 1977 Cesare Marchetti, Italian industrial physicist Coined the term “geoengineering” and proposed sequestering CO2 in the deep ocean 1983 Stanford Penner, A. M. Schneider, and E. M. Kennedy, American physicists Suggested introducing small particles into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space 1988 John H. Martin, American oceanographer Proposed dispersing a relatively small amount of iron into appropriate areas of the ocean to create large algae blooms that could take in enough atmospheric carbon to reverse the greenhouse effect and cool Earth 1989 James T. Early, American climatologist Suggested deflecting sunlight by 2 percent with a $1 trillion to $10 trillion “space shade” placed in Earth orbit 1990 John Latham, British cloud physicist Proposed seeding marine stratocumulus clouds with seawater droplets to increase their reflectivity and longevity 1992 NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy Proposed adding more dust to naturally occurring stratospheric dust to increase the net reflection of sunlight Selected climate engineering proposals, 1877–1992. Source: GAO Oh, but NOW science is modern and has all the answers! But what will they say in 50 years about the science of today?
Back in 2020s when mRNA vaccines were still in their infancy, scientists experimented on a global scale that indirectly resulted in the deaths to hundreds of millions of people over the next 40 years. And then in the 2030s, when climate science was still poorly understood, another well-meaning initiative dramatically reduced the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere inadvertently causing widespread crop failures and millions of deaths by starvation. "But now we know so much more than we did back then and we can use science to slowly rebuild our populations. Soon we'll be able to re-inhabit our cities." - Professor Willard Woolbrane of the University of the Americas, 2072.
-QQuerius
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST
PPS, one of the reviews of Anthony Watts' book: >>Kimberly Johnson 5.0 out of 5 stars Climate Faithful will get defensive and attack, and won't realize that THEY are the ones in Denial. Reviewed in the United States on April 28, 2022 Helping to bring honesty to the Lies, half-truths, and attempts to deceive I read a PDF release of this book a couple of months ago. Breath of fresh air. I'm a highly published academic scientist, former tenured professor, and know how science works. And it doesn't work at all when it has been politicized. The climate field suffers from many layers of reinforcing bias. From infancy through grade school through undergraduate to graduate school, orthodoxy is rewarded. After attaining a PhD, grant applications are required, and grants only come to the orthodox, so only orthodox research studies are proposed, funded and performed, by people biased toward a specific outcome. And no one will risk writing a negative paper. A negative paper won't get published, and if it did, it would only harm ones career. Non-orthodox data therefore sit in a drawer.. The media's *If it bleeds it leads* assures that only the most highly distilled climate orthodoxy is ever seen by the lay reader. There is no way that the climate field can provide any semblance of the truth. It is too filled with reinforcing biases. This book discredits the myths put out by the climate change industry and the political/government body known as the IPCC. It helps us recognize that the climate change pseudoscience is poor science at best and certainly not "truth." This book is put out by people who have the courage to point out that the so-called consensus is a political construct, and not scientific. And that the science is simply not what the fear mongering collectivist coercers claim. Please get this book into our schools. And help our students to stop being indoctrinated and brainwashed by people who think that lousy science is actually the truth. Let the Denial and Defensive assault from the orthodox climate fear mongers begin! Read less 35 people found this helpful>> PPPS: PDF https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/CaaG-2022.pdfkairosfocus
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PST
Marfin, there is a yet darker, loaded innuendo in the choice of terms, "denying." Direct insinuation of a parallel to Holocaust denial. The Holocaust was discovered by witnesses, was filmed, people from nearby towns were made to walk through and see, was subjected to International tribunals. Climate modelling simulations, problems with arrays of weather stations [see WUWT], serious disagreements between experts, evidence of fudging and more do not put climate research findings, ideologically loaded summaries for policy makers, PR releases and textbook or TV confident manner assertions in anywhere near the same ballpark. Science is not a monolith and we must be discerning and prudent. KF PS, a WUWT primer https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Glance-Teachers-Students-Prominent/dp/1934791938kairosfocus
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PST
Querius at 58. Thanks for the video. As you said at 65, (and I couldn't have said it better), "I was completely stunned after watching the expert testimonies–I had no idea how bad it really was/is where government and medical bureaucrats brazenly suppress science and intimidate doctors in support of a convenient lie. And the legacy media tirelessly cover for these monsters." Spot on!bornagain77
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PST
Just one more peeve of mine , most people saying "trust the science"dont know the science behind what they trust , they trust the scientist not the science. Its a very dangerous thing to let other`s do your thinking for you , very dangerous indeed. Ask yourselves these questions , how do I know I am right ? and what do I , ME , MYSELF know about how the science was done and how the conclusions were reached in the matter I say "trust the science" in. If you are honest you will acknowledge you have examined the matter very little or not at all , so why do you say "trust the science , or why do you hold that given viewpoint.Marfin
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PST
I am getting pretty tired of hearing the phrase " denying the science" science not "the science" is a methodology of getting to the possible facts/truth of a matter. Someone or some group of doctors, scientists or media folk making bold statement about any given subject is not "the science" how this, the conclusion about the statements that are made are being reached that may be the science , but I would still like to see the methodology , experiments , test etc they used to get to their conclusion so I can make my own mind up as to the actual science. A case in point how many climate scientist have actual access to the thermometers or satellites that have measured the earths temperature over the last 100 years , and if they dont have real hands on access to this un-calibrated data how can they call anything they say "the science"Marfin
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PST
1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8