One thing that Climate Cover - Up makes quite clear is that the goal of
the denialist community is not to win a scientific debate.
You are also wrong about the degree of denial in
the denialist community.
Anything stronger than «amusing and delightful» will be misapproriated by
the denialist community...
This, of course, is why
the denialist community harps on «CAGW» — catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — despite the fact that this is not a scientific term (i.e. commonly used by scientists).
Thus it gives no reason to ignore science and go back to the Dark Ages as
the denialist community seems to desire to do.
Conclusion The main mistake of Marcott et al. was to drastically underestimate the degree to which
the denialist community ruthlessly and relentlessly pursues the objectives of denialism via the methods of demagoguery.
Lev Landau (and his hundreds of scientific colleagues) or Rob Ellison (and the rest of
the denialist community)?».
In this way,
the denialist community successfully drove a wedge between scientists and reporters.
Not exact matches
I worry they could win, not just in Australia but across the world because the science and policy
communities generally do not engage with belief related matters head on in mass media and
denialists handle the media very well (look at the ex journalist Lord Nigel Lawson).
For my taste, the stuff about the climate
denialists is overboard — the whole climate science and policy
community is spending too much time thinking about the
denialists and imagining that if we could just muzzle or convince these outliers that policy would be different.
That way, those of us fortunate enough can filter out, via [killfile], the coming and inevitable ululating from the enraged
denialist / delusionist / inactivist
communities that are active on this comment thread.
Second, under pressure from
denialists we in the scientific
community have spent too much time talking about consensus.
Obviously the climate
community thinks about alternative theories, but its just they are so obviously weak, they don't require endless investigation that goes on and on, like we get from the
denialists.
[T] he whole climate science and policy
community is spending too much time thinking about the
denialists and imagining that if we could just muzzle or convince these outliers that policy would be different.
I don't know if publishers would go for something like this, but certainly the feedback and the
community of posters here that is slowly gathering might make an interesting book, about all the pros and cons of the issues, and the contrarians and the believers and the
denialists... If I was a literary agent, I'd sign the book up right now.
They and the public interest advocacy
community are shocked and appalled by the depths to which the
denialist and right - wing political hit squad will sink.
And instead of «almost legitimizing
denialists,» by failing to confront them aggressively and by the way he has ducked serious discussion of the threat of unchecked climate change, Hansen says: «The president should unequivocally support the climate science
community, which is under politically orchestrated assault on the legitimacy of its scientific assessments.
That's why, for example, the medical
community, immunologists, virologists, etc. have no problem calling people «AIDS
denialists».
• Postulate 2 The pro-carbon
denialist / astroturfer
community will continue to pursue the objectives of denialism via the methods of demagoguery.
Conclusion Pope Francis» long - range morally - grounded
community - oriented science - respecting worldview — a worldview that concludes «there is a clear, definitive and ineluctable ethical imperative to act» — contrasts strikingly with the selfish quibbling short - sighted science - rejecting worldview of climate - change
denialists.
Within the
community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe called skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and
denialists.