How can climate change denialism be explained?

@iceaura: Whereas your list of responses makes it clear that you are one of the left wing denialists. As a result, debating things with you is a waste of time, facts can't sway a denialist.

I am glad to see that you accept that gun control laws do not in fact make people measurably safer. That is one point where the facts have bled through (but I have many friends who are outraged that, for example, NYC can't ban guns under the current post-Heller line of cases, and their reasons are "guns are dangerous!").
 
cavalier said:
@iceaura: Whereas your list of responses makes it clear that you are one of the left wing denialists.
Please grace us with a single example - just one - of an established fact I have denied.

Then you can continue with what is apparently going to be an ad hominem argument about something, if you ever get around to actually making one, with at least the basics covered.

cavalier said:
I am glad to see that you accept that gun control laws do not in fact make people measurably safer.
You cannot see that from anything I have posted here.

Or are you merely goading, in the common fashion of the rightwing denialists when confronted with physical evidence and sound argument?
 
I'll have to jump in here quickly, iceaura;

4) It's not a "fact" at all, let alone a "clear" one, that banning corporations from setting up sweatshops in poor nations hurts the people who live there.

Sweatshops are horrible things, and several (perhaps most) employ child slavery as a means of production. This is a bad thing, and it should be stopped. The trouble is there are also legitimate enterprises allowing children who have no other options to find work, and (typically Leftist dominated) NGOs view these two indiscriminately, which means although some children are freed from slavery, many are also put out of work, slowing economic development.

Overall, I don't disagree with you; NGO work's benefits tend to outweigh the costs, and are therefore good. I think Cavalier merely had a bit of trouble expressing his postulate to you.

5) The safety of GM foods is not an established fact, and there is quite a bit of evidence and argument indicating considerable risks and harms both serious and likely, direct and indirect, from them in their current modes of deployment as private corporation profit centers. Denial of that is fact denial - not the other way around.

That's valid. Pharmaceutical companies have the same issue, and the problem is still open for debate. However, Cavalier seems to be thinking more short term whereas you seem to be thinking more long term. Although it's possible that GM food would be harmful (believe me, I'm not a fan and buy mostly organic/non-GMO), it's an issue we could likely curb if the problem ever arose (similar to that of DDT, which was harmful though largely remediable).

Neither do any significant number of people, of any ideology, deny the likely
existence of physiological differences between men and women, possibly including some bearing on cognition. The controversy is about their nature, and many people deny that Larry Summers knows what they are - but that is not fact denial. Larry Summers is not a repository of incontrovertible fact in this matter.

The association here seems to be between Feminism and Leftists, which are technically individual ideologies that happen to overlap a good portion of the time. You wouldn't believe the trouble we had in our psychology textbooks; the whole book reeked of affirmative action. In my mind, that is not science, and largely a result of left-leaning feminists groups pushing for equality in a world where there are simply differences between the sexes. This doesn't mean one is better or worse, simply that they are different.
 
travis said:
I think Cavalier merely had a bit of trouble expressing his postulate to you.
Nah, he was clear. His postulate is without support in fact or argument, is the problem.

travis said:
However, Cavalier seems to be thinking more short term whereas you seem to be thinking more long term. Although it's possible that GM food would be harmful (believe me, I'm not a fan and buy mostly organic/non-GMO), it's an issue we could likely curb if the problem ever arose (similar to that of DDT, which was harmful though largely remediable).
"Likely curb"? How likely, exactly?

As with DDT, trans fats, CFCs, plantation agriculture, (or go back to potato fungi, corn fungi, various diseases such as Dutch Elm blight, etc etc etc) it is quite possible to create problems with GM techniques heedlessly deployed that we can't easily or without consequences fix. And we have less than a half a generation's practical experience with them - the most complex and ramifying agricultural innovations ever invented.

Genetics reproduces and spreads itself. 90% of a country's planted crop is not easily replaced on short notice. We don't have a complete description of even the internal workings of the genetic code of any organism on this planet, let alone the environmental stuff. These circumstances are not subtle hints - they are alarm sirens.
travis said:
The association here seems to be between Feminism and Leftists,
So? The claim was a false one, is the point. No one, Leftist of Feminist or anyone, denies the existence of physiological differences between men and women, some of them with possible bearing on cognition.

What he is trying to do is put rebuttal and refusal of certain ignorant bigotries and uninformed presumptions on an equal footing with denial of established fact.
 
Whereas your list of responses makes it clear that you are one of the left wing denialists.
So far, all iceaura has done is to confront your claims with controverting facts. I found them to be intelligent and thought provoking and without the hyperbole and bluster of some of the other posters here.
As a result, debating things with you is a waste of time, facts can't sway a denialist.
So far I'm convinced that anyone who engages iceaura has much to gain.
I am glad to see that you accept that gun control laws do not in fact make people measurably safer.
Sounds like good fodder for a gun control thread, unless you want to take up the issue of Rep Gifford and shooting at Democratic offices as a possible consequence of these politicians embracing environmental and climate science, among any of the other issues you're propounding.
That is one point where the facts have bled through
Odd choice of words.
(but I have many friends who are outraged that, for example, NYC can't ban guns under the current post-Heller line of cases, and their reasons are "guns are dangerous!").
Perish the thought. (Literally.)
 
Back
Top