A Short History of Denial

Why do people deny the facts coming from Scientists on Global Warming ?

“Well-financed conservative think-tanks”
“Unduly weighted outlier views”
“Scientific illiteracy”
“Our message hasn’t gotten through to the American people”
“Organised and systematic campaign”

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/science_show_on_climate_change.php

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/04/ssw_20100403_1205.mp3

Mentioned by Naomi Oreskes in the audio presentation :-

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

4 thoughts on “A Short History of Denial”

  1. Dear Jo, People deny the ‘facts’ coming from ‘Scientists’ on Global Warming because the whole thing has been shown to be a fraud.
    With the researchers at UEA having manipulated and hidden the data, you do not need to be Einstein to see that the whole thing is fraudulent.
    The farce only continues because of the vested interests of researchers, to continue to receive funding and of governments’ desire to chisel us out of more money in any way they can.
    I hope you will one day wake up to this reality, but it’s hard to shake a true believer from his/her delusions.

  2. LOL!!

    Ian, I claim a Poe here.

    You didn’t post that without your tongue in your cheek, did you?

    Otherwise, you’ve just demonstrated a wide range of denialist behaviour and no-think in a few sentences. That takes a special kind of talent.

    It’s silly of me to expect you would present any evidence, I know, but where is your evidence?

  3. Johnmac,
    If either side of this debate could produce any real evidence, there would be no need for further discussion.
    Just like religion, it’s really down to belief systems, that’s why both sides are so stubborn.
    And I’m an atheist.
    But along with most AGW believers, you have demonstrated your rudeness by using the words ‘no-think’.
    That takes no talent at all.

  4. Ian, look back on your choice of words in your initial post. “Fraud”, “fraudulent”, “manipulated”, “farce”, “true believer”, “delusions” just for the obvious.

    Wouldn’t you agree that language like that is a little more than “rude”?

    You’ve thrown around a bunch of accusations, and you have not supported any of them with any facts or evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.