Here's a link:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/file … -00073.pdf
It basically says that the rejection of scientific thinking is generally proposed by those that lean toward conspiracy thinking.
I like it! "If you don't agree with what I say you are a conspirator, as defined by me. And here are some neat looking graphs, using meaningless data, that make my claim 'scientific' to boot".
Of course, that's a part of what is really questionable about the whole "climate is warming AND it is all mankind's fault"...
wilderness, I love you, but you're kind of supporting the conclusion of the paper by discounting the validity of the science.
The point was, I didn't see any science. Just claims unsupported by anything but irrelevant claims that somewhere there was a study.
Science requires observational data (relevant to the claim), and there was none that I saw. Admittedly, I did not dissect the article, but merely skimmed it, and I could be wrong. But I do think it would be next to impossible (without specific, friendly definitions) to prove that people questioning that man causes all climate change is a conspirator. That very much sounds like an emotional appeal without anything to support it except a definition that anybody that disagrees conspires.
My take was that there was plenty of science there and that the conclusion wasn't that those who don't believe in man-made climate change were conspirators, but that those who were prone to believe that climate change does not exist were prone to believe in other conspiracy theories as well.
Did the article contain a study on the correlation between believing in man made climate change and conspiracies? Who was polled, where and by whom? I didn't see any of that, just a definition that if you don't believe you are a conspirator.
Where is the study data? Where is the analysis? Where are the tests? The observations? The peer reviews? These are all necessary for science, but I don't see any of them. With all of these missing, what you have is an opinion paper, not a scientific one.
Who cares? For decades, the debate has been centering on whether or not there is global warming or climate change. The liberals get angry when the conservatives say that it's a pseudoscience, and we keep debating whether it's true or not. Why do we need the debate? Both sides agree that we can do a better job of taking care of the environment. The debate should focus on what we can do rather than whether or not pollution is changing our climate. Let's move on to constructive ideas rather than debate a perpetual debate that accomplishes little to nothing.
It seems climate scientists have conspired to convince us that conspiracy doesn't take place.
Why then have the latest IPCC reports been doctored by governments before they were released to the media?
There is no doubt that climate change is happening but there is still doubt as to why and how fast it is happening.
Of course there is no conspiracy by climate scientists, they really dont care about upsetting their paymaster do they?
by Jack Lee21 months ago
Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions." Here are our opposing hubs - http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C …...
by mbuggieh3 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge...
by Credence27 months ago
Dangerous slippery slope sponsored by your strident reactionary neighbors and this current administration, have a read if you please....https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu … democracy/Rightwingers: be on the...
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by Tumbletree6 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by Scott Bateman5 months ago
It also banned the phrase "emissions reduction".I'm hopeful that the Trump administration will soon ban other stupid phrases, such as "freedom of expression".http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/e...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.