The Hill trots out a missive by Arturo Casadevall, MD, Ph.D. (chairman of the Molecular Microbiology & Immunology department at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and Ferric C. Fang, MD (professor of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology at the University of Washington) with the pithy headline
showing that Warmists have completely given up on attempting to persuade, and simply going for insults.
Today there are many active fronts in the war on science. Climatologists are attacked for their virtually unanimous consensus that earth is facing a period of anthropogenic climate change. A vocal movement claims that vaccines are responsible for autism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The theory of evolution remains under attack by creationists. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including pest-resistant crops that promise greater bounties, are banned in many countries despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe for people and the environment. In keeping with this mood, the Trump administration has repeatedly belittled the value of scientific expertise and eliminated scientists from panels that advise the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice.
Well, that is very interesting. Who tends to be against these vaccines? Mostly leftists, especially Hollyweirdos. How about GMOs? These are overwhelmingly people who vote to the Left.
Those who deny specific scientific findings and theories are neither idiots or Luddites. Such individuals have no problem using the fruits of science and technology such as cell phones, medicines and computers. Science deniers are selective in their rejection of science when it focuses on a specific finding that they do not like.
Yes, those same things that create “carbon pollution.” When will Warmists give these up? BTW, a lot of these same Warmists also despise Big Business, which brings them all these products and medicines.
Despite the widespread evidence of science denialism, there is no organized opposition to broad swaths of scientific theory. For instance, no one is denying major theories such as the standard model of particle physics, the germ theory of disease, general relativity, lunar origins, continental drift or Mendelian genetics. Those who make war on science are opposed to some particular scientific finding rather than the scientific method or the entirety of science.
That’s because those are real, as proven by the use of said Scientific Method. Warmism isn’t. Hence, how the authors put it in political, consensus, and smear terms.
But, they are right: science will win out in the end. The Cult of Climastrology will be proven to be wrong. Because it isn’t about science, as Casadevall and Fang inadvertently state
On the other hand, the denial of climate science is centered on resistance to economic and lifestyle changes that would bring about major disruption to certain ways of life, as we switch away from carbon-based fuels. Similarly, resistance to forensic science reform is based on a reluctance to change prosecutorial practice.
I wonder if either of these doctors have given up their own use of fossil fuels and made their own lives carbon neutral, disrupting their own economic lifestyles? Do they require their patients and/or employees to only take sustainable means to their offices? How about requiring their buildings to only use non-fossil fuels energy? What’s that? There wouldn’t be power to do what they do? Huh.
“economic and lifestyle changes that would bring about major disruption to certain ways of life”, the only people it will affect are the middle class and the poor, the rich elitists will continue with multiple huge houses, private planes, etc.
TEACH once again (and always) resorts to ad hominem attacks. The authors did not differentiate science denialism by political stripe, you did. We can all recognize that anti-vaxxers are not being scientific (not to mention being destructive to society) without regard to their politics. In the same vein, the climate denialists are not being scientific (not to mention being destructive to society). Two political opposites, united in their anti-science crusades.
The science of global warming is clear – as clear as the standard model of particle physics, the germ theory of disease, general relativity, lunar origins, continental drift or Mendelian genetics – and it’s silly to have the same arguments over and over. The difference is that, just as tobacco companies financed denialism decades ago, the fossil fuels industry and their minions finance climate change denialism now. There’s money to be made. No one is going to get rich denying gravity, germ theory or continental drift.
Yes, science has won out. And you’re the loser.
First you denied it was warming. Then the overwhelming warming forced you to change your story – it’s warming but it’s all natural. Now, even denialists recognize that it’s CO2 causing the warming. Your next move is to say either it’s too late, or the costs of are too high.
Jeff,
The people who question the flimsy data and computer models are being scientific, that is the basis of science. Providing parties for the drug industry does not make you a scientist and your comments show that you don’t have a clue.
Now climate science has about the same equivalence as leeches and blood letting and other similar delusions of the masses. Teach did question warming due to the dishonesty of the scientist. I still question much of this. Climate science has attributed every issue on this world to CO2. At some point you have to say that this is foolish and a lie. In your comments you lied several times. If your issue is so strong why do you lie? Then there is the issue of not a single prominent spokesman for his issue who lives carbon neutral, instead they are the worst offenders. Your one and only methods of resolution of the problem centers on taxes economic destruction,strong central world government and establishment of a ruling elite. Then your resolution will do little to help, and this from your own people. It is disgusting to see you blame the fossil fuel companies without evidence despite the fact that many of these companies are tolerating this crap. Again, you are a fool.
dave,
You ejaculate another Gish Gallop of off-topic comments and insults. You’re the one that has admitted to taking payola from big Pharma for providing fraudulent results from clinical trials. You’re lucky not have served time. Or did you? Were you ever jailed or did you get off with a fine and banishment by the FDA?
Is the Earth warming?
Is atmospheric CO2 increasing?
Does infrared radiation interact with CO2?
Of course the answer to all these is “Yes”. It would be surprising indeed to a scientist if the Earth were NOT warming. The theory and the observations match up quite well – despite the lies of TEACH, you and Roy Spencer.
Jeff,
I don’t ever remember getting anything from the drug companies, you might not remember that is one of your lies, hard to keep up with them, isn’t it. I am afraid that you are off topic with reference to smoking and other issue such as accusing Teach of falsehood.
Sorry, J-there is absolutely nothing “clear†about climate science. The field abounds with skeptic papers showing all kinds of contradictory evidence. One proof of that is this article we’re discussing. “Denying scienceâ€, is a phrase often used by alarmists when they have no rational counter argument. Of course all science is about questioning the status quo, this is how many significant discoveries come about. Those that are really “denying science†are those who want no more debate. In other words, the alarmists