Australian Politics Forum - The five stages of denial

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

The five stages of denial
Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:14pm

Deny a problem exists (it's "junk science").
Deny humans are the cause ("the climate has always changed, it's not because of industrial activity" - never mind the rate of change and the source of change).
Deny it's a problem ("global warming will benefit humanity").
Deny we can solve it ("renewable energy is not practical on a large scale", "carbon taxes don't do anything for the climate, plus they hurt the poor", etc.)
It's too late anyway...(so lets just keep going with business as usual...)

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Quote:

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

More at the link.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1797 QLD Gender:	Re: The five stages of denial Reply #1 - Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm Saw that one. Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong. Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong. Take it easy.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #2 - Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Saw that one.

Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong.
Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong.

Take it easy.

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.

This is quite a good article on how science works in practice. It's worth reading it through. The alarm bells should go off when you see some of the fallacies in Section 3.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

Then, there are the basics. If you want to show that a premise is invalid, at least represent the premise correctly. Most run of the mill denialists fail to do this. I don't know how often I've seen the claim that a runaway greenhouse effect is highly unlikely, when in fact nobody is claiming that it's remotely possible.

The other issue is jumping on anything that non experts say in defence of climatology. People often get things wrong if they are describing something outside their field. That doesn't invalidate anything.

If you are a genuine sceptic (we should all be sceptics) then you should be just as concerned about the false scepticism as I am. After all, it's just noise. Too much of that false scepticism has an unwanted consequence.

The danger is that everything will be tarred with the same brush because there is just so much of this false scepticism to wade through.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:53pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #3 - Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:49pm

muso wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Saw that one.

Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong.
Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong.

Take it easy.

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.

This is quite a good article on how science works in principle. It's worth reading it through. The alarm bells should go off when you see some of the fallacies in Section 3.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

Then, there are the basics. If you want to show that a premise is invalid, at least represent the premise correctly. Most run of the mill denialists fail to do this. I don't know how often I've seen the claim that a runaway greenhouse effect is highly unlikely, when in fact nobody is claiming that it's remotely possible.

The other issue is jumping on anything that non experts say in defence of climatology. People often get things wrong if they are describing something outside their field. That doesn't invalidate anything.

Great article so far I got to 3.3

It's interesting that those fallacies listed in 3.2 are used on both sides.
My summary of the whole climate change debate would be; thousands of scientists studying many factors of our world, many individual minor factors and effects. Then you have a group that gathers this together, gives us all an interpretation of these papers.

We then have people debating over the interpretation of the evidence, with both sides tossing around fallacies left and right.

Which is why besides a minor discussion, come the next report, I'm going to refrain from pointless debate that leads to absolutely no understanding with some people.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #4 - Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:49pm

# wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Deny a problem exists (it's "junk science").
Deny humans are the cause ("the climate has always changed, it's not because of industrial activity" - never mind the rate of change and the source of change).
Deny it's a problem ("global warming will benefit humanity").
Deny we can solve it ("renewable energy is not practical on a large scale", "carbon taxes don't do anything for the climate, plus they hurt the poor", etc.)
It's too late anyway...(so lets just keep going with business as usual...)

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Quote:

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

More at the link.

The funny thing is when the deniers straddle several of those stages at the same time.

How many times have you heard some "genius" on here obediently parrot the Daily Mail's columnists silly idea that there has been "no warming for 17 years" - and then in the next post tell us that the warming is due to the sun, or cosmic rays or some other mysterious "natural" forcing.

I recall one moron recently claim that observed sea level rise is not due global warming, because it isn't melting ice causing it - it is thermal expansion. When asked why the oceans are thermally expanding when he claims that there has been "no warming for 17 years" - well, he just ran away - as he normally does.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #5 - Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:58pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

Great article so far I got to 3.3

It's interesting that those fallacies listed in 3.2 are used on both sides.
My summary of the whole climate change debate would be; thousands of scientists studying many factors of our world, many individual minor factors and effects. Then you have a group that gathers this together, gives us all an interpretation of these papers.

We then have people debating over the interpretation of the evidence, with both sides tossing around fallacies left and right.

Which is why besides a minor discussion, come the next report, I'm going to refrain from pointless debate that leads to absolutely no understanding with some people.

Good. I started a thread for real scepticism. I also added another important point to my original post on this thread. I have a feeling that you'll agree with me. We all have a duty to highlight something that is patently false regardless of who is making it, in order to sift the signal from the noise.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #6 - Sep 20^th, 2013 at 2:25pm

muso wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.

I agree this also includes the science coming out of the IPCC........???????

Now yesterday the IPCC where saying that the missing heat was in the deep layers of the ocean 3000m plus.

Which muso defended vehemently......!!!!!

AR5 is saying that most of the heat in the oceans is in the top 700 metres......!!!!

They seem to change their science like the wind changes direction......!!!!!

What is the excuse for this 180 degree back flip......!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #7 - Sep 20^th, 2013 at 3:34pm

# wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Deny a problem exists (it's "junk science").
1. Denial and Isolation
Deny humans are the cause ("the climate has always changed, it's not because of industrial activity" - never mind the rate of change and the source of change).
2. Anger
Deny it's a problem ("global warming will benefit humanity").
3. Bargaining
Deny we can solve it ("renewable energy is not practical on a large scale", "carbon taxes don't do anything for the climate, plus they hurt the poor", etc.)
4. Depression
It's too late anyway...(so lets just keep going with business as usual...)
5. Acceptance

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief

Quote:

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

More at the link.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The five stages of denial Reply #8 - Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:54pm Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #9 - Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:56pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Saw that one.

Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong.
Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong.

Take it easy.

What is a commercial and why do they exist??

Wow, for someone who pretends to believe in the power of free markets you don't really understand the most basic of tricks as to how brand loyalty is achieved do ya buddy?

T a K e i t e A sy as i am ful l y s i c K b r o- ya want some ice w/ that yo Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #10 - Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:58pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

muso wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Saw that one.

Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong.
Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong.

Take it easy.

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.

This is quite a good article on how science works in principle. It's worth reading it through. The alarm bells should go off when you see some of the fallacies in Section 3.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

Then, there are the basics. If you want to show that a premise is invalid, at least represent the premise correctly. Most run of the mill denialists fail to do this. I don't know how often I've seen the claim that a runaway greenhouse effect is highly unlikely, when in fact nobody is claiming that it's remotely possible.

The other issue is jumping on anything that non experts say in defence of climatology. People often get things wrong if they are describing something outside their field. That doesn't invalidate anything.

Great article so far I got to 3.3

It's interesting that those fallacies listed in 3.2 are used on both sides.
My summary of the whole climate change debate would be; thousands of scientists studying many factors of our world, many individual minor factors and effects. Then you have a group that gathers this together, gives us all an interpretation of these papers.

We then have people debating over the interpretation of the evidence, with both sides tossing around fallacies left and right.

Which is why besides a minor discussion, come the next report,

I'm going to refrain from pointless debate that leads to absolutely no understanding with some people

.

meaning??? Huh

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #11 - Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:01pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

muso wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.

I agree this also includes the science coming out of the IPCC........???????

Now yesterday the IPCC where saying that the missing heat was in the deep layers of the ocean 3000m plus.

Which muso defended vehemently......!!!!!

AR5 is saying that most of the heat in the oceans is in the top 700 metres......!!!!

They seem to change their science like the wind changes direction......!!!!!

What is the excuse for this 180 degree back flip......!!!

Dood, MORE CRACK IS THE ONLY ANSWER EVER!

gawd, don't ya know anything??.... let me show you how to light that Grin

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The five stages of denial Reply #12 - Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:04pm DRAH - can you just ease off with the crack? It's not nice to accuse somebody of being a crack smoker. Ajax - Don't you read my posts at all? By insisting that the IPCC have ever claimed that most ocean heat is in the lower ocean levels is just making you look very stupid. Even Gizmo disowned you.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The five stages of denial
Reply #13 - Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:09pm

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:04pm:

DRAH - can you just ease off with the crack? It's not nice to accuse somebody of being a crack smoker.

Ajax - Don't you read my posts at all?

yeh, fair enough: it's not nice knowing my kids kids kids will be inheriting an inherently unstable future with resource wars that could be avoided with a little more effort to call out the deniers but I suppose you are the arbiter of what is fair and what is not fair play so is suppose the children savers must again perish!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Vuk11 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1797 QLD Gender:	Re: The five stages of denial Reply #14 - Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:21pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:58pm: meaning??? Meaning I'm willing to participate in a conversation about climate change until it devolves into personal attacks and pointless assumptions/accusations.
Back to top	IP Logged