[LINK] [Fwd: The meaning of climate change denial]

[Karl Auer]

"A wave of anxiety has boosted the anti-smokers’ presence in the Senate,
on NSW local councils and now in the ACT Legislative Assembly. Heady
days for them. But the prospect of more anti-smoking muscle flexing is
disquieting. Resort to rhetorical smears and bullying are commonplace.
Terms like “smoking denialism” and “smoking sceptic” assume a sinister
aspect. Until recently an intellectual virtue, scepticism has become a
dirty word. In the field of public health, to name one, a stifling
anti-smoking doctrine looms larger than ever."

Modified for effect, in case you hadn't realised :-)

Where the article writer went wrong is here:

   "The flip-side of scepticism is orthodoxy. Scepticism is
    controversial whenever there’s strong attachment to a
    received belief. So if there’s evolution scepticism, there
    must be evolution orthodoxy."

No, not really.

The term "climate sceptic" was largely invented, or at least eagerly
latched on to, by the groups opposed to taking action. In much the same
way as "climate change" instead of "global warming". The term "sceptic"
is less negative than "denier", but that is what the vast majority of
"sceptics" are. Since ALL the scientists working on the problem are
professional sceptics, stealing a valid, correct and respected term and
applying it to people who in fact are either unthinking, mistaken or
venal was a PR masterstroke.

To put it in perspective, imagine "evolution sceptic", "smoking sceptic"
or "holocaust sceptic". Yes it is *possible* that the holocaust didn't
happen, that smoking has no connection to lung cancer or that evolution
is a load of fetid dingoes' kidneys - but all are fantastically
*unlikely* given the large amounts of evidence against those ideas.

So unlikely in fact, that to dignify people holding those ideas with the
respectable term "sceptic" is inappropriate.

The idea that science is "received belief" is preposterous. We all
benefit from the results of scientific endeavour; there is hardly an
aspect of first world life that is not deeply suffused with its
practical applications. The evidence for science as a successful
approach is utterly, staggeringly, overwhelmingly omnipresent and
ubiquitous.

Trust in the scientific method is not "received belief", it is a trust
that, even without any scientific knowledge or education, is confirmed
every waking minute. And confirmed not in the way that religious people
like to say that their trust in this or that deity is "confirmed", but
confirmed in simple, solid, empirically testable and repeatable ways. In
fact, "trust" is the wrong word to use here - the right word is "know".

Another quote from the article Ross provided:

   "Remarkably, these reports or instruments, which cover massive
    detail and encompass several disciplines, are presented — and
    mostly accepted — as an all-or-nothing proposition. Anyone who
    dares to raise questions about their data, methodology or
    projections, no matter how limited in scope, risks being labeled
    a sceptic and marginalised."

Not at all - provided the questioner comes with understanding and facts
to support their position. This is astoundingly rarely the case.

   "Clearly, it’s about framing debates and manipulating public
    opinion."

Yep - and that is exactly what this cunningly written article sought to
do. Would have been great in a high-school debate. As serious commentary
it is junk.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687