1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

The further a society drifts from the truth...

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Jonntyboy, Sep 19, 2020.

  1. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    - the more it will hate those who speak it.

    A quote, as many will recognise, from Orwell.

    We haven't discussed ideas about climate for a while, and I thought that some may have opened their minds over past weeks - maybe some will have had time to do some real research over lockdown - and be prepared to look at the real science as opposed to the propaganda from the vested interests who make money from the various hoaxes.

    Here are some facts:

     
    lexus300 likes this.
  2. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    It's simple, put up the references to academic papers which measure no warming.
     
  3. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Star commenter

    Yes we have. There was one last week.

    https://community.tes.com/threads/false-profits-of-climate-doom.807603/

    But let's go over this one last time.

    The main research on climate change has been undertaken by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

    The National Academy of Sciences (which has over 2,000 of America’s best brains on its books, including 200 Nobel Prize winners), has found that the IPCC’s work on climate science was fair and accurate. Its own views on climate change are straightforward: ‘Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.’

    Meanwhile in 2003, the American Meteorological Society concluded that there ‘is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years…Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.’

    In the same year, the American Geophysical Union adopted a statement which claims that scientific evidence strongly indicates both that the climate of the planet is changing, and that human activities are partly responsible for the changes.

    The US Climate Change Science Program, which undertakes research on behalf of 13 federal agencies in the US published a report in 2006 which expanded on the science underpinning the findings of the IPCC. The report argues that the observed patterns of climate change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone – the human production of greenhouse gases is responsible as well.

    Scientific opinion outside of the US is behind the IPCC too. In June 2005, just ahead of the G8 summit, the national science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, Brazil, China and India signed a statement in support of the findings of the IPCC. The statement claims, ”there is now strong evidence that that significant global warming is occurring…It is likely that most of the warming can be attributed to human activities.’

    Following a campaign by the Royal Society in the UK, the national or regional scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Sweden issued a joint statement on the science of Climate Change in 2001. A part of it reads, ‘The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes.’

    In short, there is enormous, substantial agreement among experts all over the world about both the changing climate and our role in it. If there was room for doubt it would have turned up in the form of peer-reviewed, scientific articles and publications.

    Instead, what we have are a few characters on here whose modus operandi consists of posting marginal YouTube videos, usually alongside the claim that members of these various bodies are conspiring together to falsify their research to maintain their funding streams. This portrayal of the scientific community as a cabal of morally debased, only-in-it-for-the-money shysters is very strange.

    As for 'truth', here is how it works:

    1. We know that there is a thing called reality.

    2. But all the information we receive about it has first been processed by the brain. So it always comes to us secondhand.

    3. So we can never know whether reality is truly as we perceive it.

    4. Science takes us closer to that elusive reality. It' s the best thing we have.

    5. Kant thought that pure rationality gives us access to reality. But as Hume pointed out, reason is forever in thrall to the passions. So this kind of rational alchemy, whereby we relieve ourselves of all but pure logic, is almost certainly beyond us, and in any case it would also be hard to check. How would we know when we had distilled our minds of all but this, and achieved an absolute, objective perspective?

    6. Neuroscience tells us that we are, in any case, quite entrenched in our core beliefs and rarely change them. Instead our brains tend to build up wildly inaccurate but still useful maps about ourselves, the world, and the reality that exists outside of our inner perceptions. We think that we see the world correctly but we are not aware of how distorted these maps can be.

    Given the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change, I presently consider climate change denial to be an instance of a severely distorted map.

    But anyway, there's no point in engaging with deniers. The 'Dogs are Spies' thought experiment outlined by the philosopher Stephen Law in relation to Young Earth Creationism demonstrates the futility of engagement:

    https://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/believing-********-chpt-2.html

    It is also notable that threads on climate change denial on here attract fewer and fewer participants. It's not difficult to figure out why: the topic has already been done to death and no-one ever changes their views.

    The only reason I have bothered to do so is because I had a few minutes to spare this morning. I won't be doing this again.
     
    crocked, burajda, jonnymarr and 4 others like this.
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Yep, exactly what @NoseyMatronType said:

    The main research on climate change has been undertaken by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

    The National Academy of Sciences (which has over 2,000 of America’s best brains on its books, including 200 Nobel Prize winners), has found that the IPCC’s work on climate science was fair and accurate. Its own views on climate change are straightforward: ‘Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.’

    Meanwhile in 2003, the American Meteorological Society concluded that there ‘is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years…Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.’

    In the same year, the American Geophysical Union adopted a statement which claims that scientific evidence strongly indicates both that the climate of the planet is changing, and that human activities are partly responsible for the changes.

    The US Climate Change Science Program, which undertakes research on behalf of 13 federal agencies in the US published a report in 2006 which expanded on the science underpinning the findings of the IPCC. The report argues that the observed patterns of climate change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone – the human production of greenhouse gases is responsible as well.

    Scientific opinion outside of the US is behind the IPCC too. In June 2005, just ahead of the G8 summit, the national science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, Brazil, China and India signed a statement in support of the findings of the IPCC. The statement claims, ”there is now strong evidence that that significant global warming is occurring…It is likely that most of the warming can be attributed to human activities.’

    Following a campaign by the Royal Society in the UK, the national or regional scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Sweden issued a joint statement on the science of Climate Change in 2001. A part of it reads, ‘The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes.’

    In short, there is enormous, substantial agreement among experts all over the world about both the changing climate and our role in it. If there was room for doubt it would have turned up in the form of peer-reviewed, scientific articles and publications.

    Instead, what we have are a few characters on here whose modus operandi consists of posting marginal YouTube videos, usually alongside the claim that members of these various bodies are conspiring together to falsify their research to maintain their funding streams. This portrayal of the scientific community as a cabal of morally debased, only-in-it-for-the-money shysters is very strange.

    As for 'truth', here is how it works:

    1. We know that there is a thing called reality.

    2. But all the information we receive about it has first been processed by the brain. So it always comes to us secondhand.

    3. So we can never know whether reality is truly as we perceive it.

    4. Science takes us closer to that elusive reality. It' s the best thing we have.

    5. Kant thought that pure rationality gives us access to reality. But as Hume pointed out, reason is forever in thrall to the passions. So this kind of rational alchemy, whereby we relieve ourselves of all but pure logic, is almost certainly beyond us, and in any case it would also be hard to check. How would we know when we had distilled our minds of all but this, and achieved an absolute, objective perspective?

    6. Neuroscience tells us that we are, in any case, quite entrenched in our core beliefs and rarely change them. Instead our brains tend to build up wildly inaccurate but still useful maps about ourselves, the world, and the reality that exists outside of our inner perceptions. We think that we see the world correctly but we are not aware of how distorted these maps can be.

    Given the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change, I presently consider climate change denial to be an instance of a severely distorted map.



    You have to be more than a bit dim to persist with the view that you know better than the world's scientific community. Especially when the evidence in front of your eyes is confirming the science.
     
  5. colacao17

    colacao17 Lead commenter

    I'd go for arrogant over dim, though it's possible that both are applicable.
     
  6. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter

    How to win friends and influence people.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  7. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    But the video is mostly bellyaching that a few people weren't given work by bodies that were investigating climate change.
    The first one actually admits that CO2 is rising and is having a noticeable effect on the world's vegetation - strange, confusing even, that you are happy to accept that, but not that it's also having an effect on climate?

    Out of curiosity, aren't there bodies that employ people to show there's no climate change happening, or that what is happening isn't man made- do they employ many real scientists who disagree with them?
    For someone who is pretending to be concerned about bias you are very biased over which biases you are objecting to.
     
    burajda and ajrowing like this.
  8. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Money is hard to come by in academic circles. They certainly aren't going to hand it out to fruit loops to **** up the wall.
     
    Burndenpark likes this.
  9. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter

    With friends like you, who needs enemies?
     
  10. ajrowing

    ajrowing Star commenter

    As an example of false logic, that is a pearl!
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  11. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Facts? Says who. Is Tony Heller a scientist with any published work?
     
  12. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter

    Would you be persuaded if he was?
     
  13. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    True, to some extent they should be willing to fund those who have different ideas though...

    What annoys me most with this video is the compliant that only one side is biased when the side making that complaint is far more biased. I should be annoyed at JB for posting it here and pretending it's something it isn't, but that's like being annoyed at the digestive tract for turning food into poo.
     
  14. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Just questioning if Steve Goddard is presenting 'facts' as the OP claims. Scientists present theories.
     
  15. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter

    Does someone need to be a scientist with published works, in order to present facts?
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  16. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    It depends if they are the ones deciding which "facts" they present.
    It certainly makes a difference if they understand the stuff, Lexus or you presenting "facts" about evolution is a world away from a real scientist presenting them.
     
    ajrowing likes this.
  17. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    I'm not a scientist with published work (though I do have such in another field). But if I come along with data that has been correctly collected and presented about, say, the number and behaviour of sparrows in our back garden, then provided I can logically prove such data to be factual there is no reason for anyone to dismiss it, even if I don't have a PhD in ornithology.

    I never accept anything at face value, because I believe - rightly or wrongly - that many (most?) scientists will take the line that keeps their funding streams coming. And I certainly don't take Tony's assertions at face value. But every time, so far, that I have managed to check what he presents, I have found other sources that prove him to be correct. He gives sources for everything he states, so anyone can check.

    Here is a salutary example of when the establishment consensus decries the pathfinder (my emphases);

    Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician working at the Vienna General Hospital in the 1840s. His tasks included inspections, teaching, and record-keeping. At the time, the hospital had a particularly bad reputation for maternal mortality due to puerperal fever, with a 10 percent death rate among new mothers. Another nearby hospital only had a 4 percent death rate, so Semmelweis set out to pinpoint what was causing the spread of the fever.

    He noticed that the Vienna General Hospital’s medical students went from autopsying cadavers straight to birthing babies. Though he didn’t know anything about germs, he assumed it was a lack of cleanliness causing unnecessary deaths. When he had doctors and midwives wash their hands in chlorine lime solutions, the mortality rates went down to 1 to 2 percent.

    It seems straightforward enough, but news of washing hands didn’t go over well in the rest of Europe. Many doctors were offended that Semmelweis saw them as dirty, their egos leading them to believe that it couldn’t be their uncleanliness that caused disease. And because Semmelweis never published an official report on why sanitation was life-saving, the medical world completely rejected him, viewing him as an embarrassment.

    The rejection drove him to alcoholism, depression, and isolation. He even penned several letters lashing out at his critics, noting that the doctors who rejected his work were “irresponsible murderers” and “ignoramuses.” Toward the end of his life, he was sent to a mental asylum, where he died forgotten by his peers. Decades later, germ theory merged with the likes of Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister practicing medicine with hygienic procedures, proving that Semmelweis’ idea indeed saved lives.
     
    lexus300 and Kandahar like this.
  18. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Facts is not the correct word. Here is someone who shows lots of data that has been knowingly misrepresented would be better.

    Here's a timely article from the BBC
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382
     
  19. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Can you give an example of one thing he says that you have found to be true? Yes he sources are often correct, but he cherry picks and misrepresents the data to form poor conclusions.
     
    ajrowing likes this.
  20. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Climate scientists the world over measure, collect data, present it and provide explanations for it.

    Yet you dismiss it. You who don't even have a science background and belive lots of other weird things.

    Maybe it's not the world's scientific community that are stupid and wrong.
     
    costermonger likes this.

Share This Page